2005 ISUP Gleason score

See also: Gleason score

Thus, a 2005 ISUP modified Gleason system was proposed, outlining the morphological patterns 1–5, which were accompanied by a modified diagram, similar to the original Gleason system.

It was reiterated that GP1 and GP2 are quite rare on biopsy and prostatectomy. The most significant modifications pertained to patterns 3 and 4.

GP3 was restricted to discrete glandular units (as in the original system) and to smoothly circumscribed but only small cribriform tumour nodules, which, in essence, reduced the spectrum of cribriform glands interpreted as pattern 3.

GP4 Pattern 4 included fused glands and large cribriform glands or cribriform glands with border irregularities, as well as hypernephromatoid glands.

Additionally, a category of ill-defined glands or glands containing poorly formed glandular lumina was introduced (not present previously) and was included under GP4.

GP5 was reserved for cancers containing essentially no glandular differentiation, composed of solid sheets, cords, and single cells, as in the original system.

Comedocarcinoma with central necrosis was also retained in pattern 5, regardless of whether it was surrounded by papillary, cribriform or solid sheets.

The consensus also provided clarifications on the grading of variants and variations of acinar adenocarcinoma of prostate, which were illustrated by examples.

These included the issues of interpretation and grading of: vacuoles, foamy gland cancer, ductal adenocarcinoma, colloid (mucinous) carcinoma, small cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma with focal mucinous extravasation, mucinous fibroplasia (collagenous micronodules), glomeruloid structures, and pseudohyperplastic carcinoma.

The consensus also recommended that secondary patterns of higher grade when present to a limited extent (≤5% of the tumour area) should always be reported on needle biopsy, while there was no consensus on reporting on prostatectomy.

Secondary patterns of lower grade when present to a limited extent (≤5% of the tumour area) in needle biopsies, prostatectomies and transurethral resections of prostate should be ignored.

Regarding the issue of tertiary GP, it was recommended that the Gleason score (GS) on needle biopsy should be derived by adding the primary and the highest pattern, whereas tertiary pattern on prostatectomy, when it is higher than the primary and the secondary patterns, should be reported separately.

Another recommendation was that separate dominant tumour nodules of different Gleason patterns should be scored separately on prostatectomy.

Finally, it was recommended that individual Gleason scores should be reported on needle biopsy specimens with different cores showing different grades, as long as the cores are submitted in separate containers. In addition, it was left as an option to provide an overall GS at the end of the case.

Open references

 Clinical Validation of the 2005 ISUP Gleason Grading System in a Cohort of Intermediate and High Risk Men Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy. Faraj SF, Bezerra SM, Yousefi K, Fedor H, Glavaris S, Han M, Partin AW, Humphreys E, Tosoian J, Johnson MH, Davicioni E, Trock BJ, Schaeffer EM, Ross AE, Netto GJ. PLoS One. 2016 Jan 5;11(1):e0146189. doi : 10.1371/journal.pone.0146189 PMID: 26731672 (Free)

References

 Impact on the clinical outcome of prostate cancer by the 2005 international society of urological pathology modified Gleason grading system. Dong F, Wang C, Farris AB, Wu S, Lee H, Olumi AF, McDougal WS, Young RH, Wu CL. Am J Surg Pathol. 2012 Jun;36(6):838-43. PMID: 22592143

 The impact of the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus on Gleason grading in contemporary practice. Zareba P, Zhang J, Yilmaz A, Trpkov K. Histopathology. 2009 Oct;55(4):384-91. PMID: 19817888

 Gleason DF. Classification of prostatic carcinoma. Cancer Chemother. Rep. 1966; 50; 125–128.

 Bailar JC 3rd, Mellinger GT, Gleason DF. Survival rates of patients with prostatic cancer, tumor stage, and differentiation: preliminary report. Cancer Chemother. Rep. 1966; 50; 129–136.

 Mellinger GT, Gleason DF, Bailar JC 3rd. The histology and prognosis of prostatic cancer. J. Urol. 1967; 97; 331–337.

 Gleason DF, Mellinger GT. Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J. Urol. 1974; 111; 58–64.

 Gleason DF and the Veterans Administration Cooperative Urological Research Group. Histologic grading and clinical staging of prostate carcinoma. In TannenbaumM ed. Urologic pathology: the prostate. Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger, 1977; 171–198.

 Mellinger GT. Prognosis of prostatic carcinoma. Recent Results Cancer Res. 1977; 60; 61–72.

 Association of Directors of Anatomical and Surgical Pathology. Recommendations for reporting of resected prostate carcinomas. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 1996; 105; 667–670.

 Srigley JR, Amin MB, Bostwick DG et al. Updated protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with carcinoma of the prostate gland: a basis for checklist. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 2000; 124; 1034–1039.

 Epstein JI. Gleason score 2–4 adenocarcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: a diagnosis that should not be made. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2000; 24; 477–478.

 Epstein JI, Yang XJ. Grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma. In EpsteinJI, YangXJ eds. Prostate biopsy interpretation, 3rd edn. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2002; 154–176.

 Amin MB, Grignon DJ, Humphrey PA, Srigley JR. Reporting of prostate carcinoma by the Gleason system. In AminMB, GrignonDJ, HumphreyPA, SrigleyJR eds. Gleason grading of prostate cancer: a contemporary approach. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2004; 101–111.

 Egevad L, Allsbrook WC, Epstein JE. Current practice of Gleason grading among genitourinary pathologists. Hum. Pathol. 2005; 36; 5–9.

 Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL and the ISUP Grading Committee. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2005; 29; 1228–1242.

 Nakanishi H, Wang X, Ochai A et al. A nomogram for predicting low-volume/low grade prostate cancer: a tool in selecting patients for active surveillance. Cancer 2007; 110; 2441–2447.

 Trpkov K, Warman L. Use of digital maps and sampling of radical prostatectomy specimens. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 2006; 130; 1751–1752.

 Schellhammer P, Moriarty R, Bostwick D, Kuban D. Fifteen-year minimum follow-up of a prostate brachytherapy series: comparing the past with the present. Urology 2000; 50; 436–439.

 Gilliland FD, Gleason DF, Hunt WC, Stone N, Harlan LC, Key CR. Trends in Gleason score for prostate cancer diagnosed between 1983–1993. J. Urol. 2001; 165; 846–850.

 Smith EB, Frierson HF Jr, Mills SE, Boyd JC, Theodorescu D. Gleason score of prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens over past 10 years. Cancer 2002; 94; 2282–2287.

 Chism DB, Hanlon AL, Troncoso P, Al-Saleem T, Horowitz EM, Pollack A. The Gleason score shift: score four and seven years ago. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2003; 56; 1241–1247.

 Kondylis FI, Moriarty RP, Bostwick D, Schellhammer P. Prostate cancer grade assignment: the effect of chronological, interpretative and translation bias. J. Urol. 2003; 170; 1189–1193.

 Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Barrows GH et al. Prostate cancer and the Will Rogers phenomenon. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 2005; 97; 1248–1253.

 Helpap B, Egevad L. The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma on biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Vichows Arch. 2006; 449; 622–627.

 Billis A, Guimaraes MS, Freitas LL, Meirelles L, Magna LA, Fereira U. The impact of the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology consensus conference on standard Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in needle biopsies. J. Urol. 2008; 180; 548–552.

 Lin KK. Pathologic findings in 5912 prostate biopsies. [Abstract.] Mod. Pathol. 2008; 21 (Suppl. 1); 166A.

 Gofrit ON, Zorn KC, Steinberg GD, Zagaja GP, Shalhav AL. The Will Rogers phenomenon in urological oncology. J. Urol. 2008; 179; 28–33.

 Feinstein AR, Sosin DM, Wells CK. The Will Rogers phenomenon: stage migration and new diagnostic techniques as a source of misleading statistics for survival in cancer. New Engl. J. Med. 1985; 312; 1604–1608.