The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System

被引:2339
|
作者
Epstein, Jonathan I. [1 ,2 ]
Egevad, Lars [3 ]
Amin, Mahul B. [4 ]
Delahunt, Brett [5 ]
Srigley, John R. [6 ]
Humphrey, Peter A. [7 ]
机构
[1] Johns Hopkins Med Inst, Dept Pathol, Dept Urol, Baltimore, MD 21205 USA
[2] Johns Hopkins Med Inst, Dept Oncol, Baltimore, MD 21205 USA
[3] Karolinska Inst, Dept Oncol Pathol, Stockholm, Sweden
[4] Cedars Sinai Med Ctr, Dept Pathol & Lab Med, Los Angeles, CA 90048 USA
[5] Univ Otago Wellington, Wellington Sch Med & Hlth Sci, Dept Pathol & Mol Med, Wellington, New Zealand
[6] McMaster Univ, Dept Pathol & Mol Med, Hamilton, ON, Canada
[7] Yale Univ, Sch Med, Dept Pathol, New Haven, CT 06510 USA
关键词
prostate cancer; grading; Gleason; ESCALATED RADIATION-THERAPY; RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; NEEDLE-BIOPSY; CRIBRIFORM PATTERN; CANCER PATIENTS; MUCINOUS ADENOCARCINOMA; PROGNOSTIC IMPACT; SCORE; DISEASE;
D O I
10.1097/PAS.0000000000000530
中图分类号
R36 [病理学];
学科分类号
100104 ;
摘要
In November, 2014, 65 prostate cancer pathology experts, along with 17 clinicians including urologists, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists from 19 different countries gathered in a consensus conference to update the grading of prostate cancer, last revised in 2005. The major conclusions were: (1) Cribriform glands should be assigned a Gleason pattern 4, regardless of morphology; (2) Glomeruloid glands should be assigned a Gleason pattern 4, regardless of morphology; (3) Grading of mucinous carcinoma of the prostate should be based on its underlying growth pattern rather than grading them all as pattern 4; and (4) Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate without invasive carcinoma should not be assigned a Gleason grade and a comment as to its invariable association with aggressive prostate cancer should be made. Regarding morphologies of Gleason patterns, there was clear consensus on: (1) Gleason pattern 4 includes cribriform, fused, and poorly formed glands; (2) The term hypernephromatoid cancer should not be used; (3) For a diagnosis of Gleason pattern 4, it needs to be seen at 10x lens magnification; (4) Occasional/seemingly poorly formed or fused glands between well-formed glands is insufficient for a diagnosis of pattern 4; (5) In cases with borderline morphology between Gleason pattern 3 and pattern 4 and crush artifacts, the lower grade should be favored; (6) Branched glands are allowed in Gleason pattern 3; (7) Small solid cylinders represent Gleason pattern 5; (8) Solid medium to large nests with rosette-like spaces should be considered to represent Gleason pattern 5; and (9) Presence of unequivocal comedonecrosis, even if focal is indicative of Gleason pattern 5. It was recognized by both pathologists and clinicians that despite the above changes, there were deficiencies with the Gleason system. The Gleason grading system ranges from 2 to 10, yet 6 is the lowest score currently assigned. When patients are told that they have a Gleason score 6 out of 10, it implies that their prognosis is intermediate and contributes to their fear of having a more aggressive cancer. Also, in the literature and for therapeutic purposes, various scores have been incorrectly grouped together with the assumption that they have a similar prognosis. For example, many classification systems consider Gleason score 7 as a single score without distinguishing 3+4 versus 4+3, despite studies showing significantly worse prognosis for the latter. The basis for a new grading system was proposed in 2013 by one of the authors (J.I.E.) based on data from Johns Hopkins Hospital resulting in 5 prognostically distinct Grade Groups. This new system was validated in a multi-institutional study of over 20,000 radical prostatectomy specimens, over 16,000 needle biopsy specimens, and over 5,000 biopsies followed by radiation therapy. There was broad (90%) consensus for the adoption of this new prostate cancer Grading system in the 2014 consensus conference based on: (1) the new classification provided more accurate stratification of tumors than the current system; (2) the classification simplified the number of grading categories from Gleason scores 2 to 10, with even more permutations based on different pattern combinations, to Grade Groups 1 to 5; (3) the lowest grade is 1 not 6 as in Gleason, with the potential to reduce overtreatment of indolent cancer; and (4) the current modified Gleason grading, which forms the basis for the new grade groups, bears little resemblance to the original Gleason system. The new grades would, for the foreseeable future, be used in conjunction with the Gleason system [ie. Gleason score 3+3=6 (Grade Group 1)]. The new grading system and the terminology Grade Groups 1-5 have also been accepted by the World Health Organization for the 2016 edition of Pathology and Genetics: Tumours of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs.
引用
收藏
页码:244 / 252
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] The prognostic significance of the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading system for prostate cancer
    Samaratunga, Hemamali
    Delahunt, Brett
    Gianduzzo, Troy
    Coughlin, Geoff
    Duffy, David
    LeFevre, Ian
    Johannsen, Shulammite
    Egevad, Lars
    Yaxley, John
    PATHOLOGY, 2015, 47 (06) : 515 - 519
  • [22] International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Grading of Prostate Cancer
    Egevad, Lars
    Delahunt, Brett
    Evans, Andrew J.
    Grignon, David J.
    Kench, James G.
    Kristiansen, Glen
    Leite, Katia R.
    Samaratunga, Hemamali
    Srigley, John R.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL PATHOLOGY, 2016, 40 (06) : 858 - 861
  • [23] Implications of the International Society of Urological Pathology Modified Gleason Grading System
    Egevad, Lars
    Mazzucchelli, Roberta
    Montironi, Rodolfo
    ARCHIVES OF PATHOLOGY & LABORATORY MEDICINE, 2012, 136 (04) : 426 - 434
  • [24] One is the new six: The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) patient-focused approach to Gleason grading
    Srigley, John R.
    Delahunt, Brett
    Egevad, Lars
    Samaratunga, Hemamali
    Yaxley, John
    Evans, Andrew J.
    CUAJ-CANADIAN UROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL, 2016, 10 (9-10): : 339 - 341
  • [25] The 2019 International Society of Urological Pathology Consensus Conference on Prostate Cancer Grading
    van Leenders, Geert J. L. H.
    van der Kwast, Theodorus H.
    Iczkowski, Kenneth A.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2021, 79 (06) : 707 - 709
  • [26] The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Grading System for Renal Cell Carcinoma and Other Prognostic Parameters
    Delahunt, Brett
    Cheville, John C.
    Martignoni, Guido
    Humphrey, Peter A.
    Magi-Galluzzi, Cristina
    McKenney, Jesse
    Egevad, Lars
    Algaba, Ferran
    Moch, Holger
    Grignon, David J.
    Montironi, Rodolfo
    Srigley, John R.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL PATHOLOGY, 2013, 37 (10) : 1490 - 1504
  • [27] SOCS3 Immunohistochemical Expression Seems to Support the 2005 and 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Modified Gleason Grading System
    Pierconti, Francesco
    Martini, Maurizio
    Cenci, Tonia
    Petrone, Gian Luigi
    Ricci, Riccardo
    Sacco, Emilio
    Bassi, Pier Francesco
    Larocca, Luigi Maria
    PROSTATE, 2017, 77 (06): : 597 - 603
  • [28] Controversial issues in Gleason and International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) prostate cancer grading: proposed recommendations for international implementation
    Srigley, John R.
    Delahunt, Brett
    Samaratunga, Hemamali
    Billis, Athanase
    Cheng, Liang
    Clouston, David
    Evans, Andrew
    Furusato, Bungo
    Kench, James
    Leite, Katia
    MacLennan, Gregory
    Moch, Holger
    Pan, Chin-Chen
    Rioux-Leclercq, Nathalie
    Ro, Jae
    Shanks, Jonathan
    Shen, Steven
    Tsuzuki, Toyonori
    Varma, Murali
    Wheeler, Thomas
    Yaxley, John
    Egevad, Lars
    PATHOLOGY, 2019, 51 (05) : 463 - 473
  • [29] Tertiary pattern reporting in prostate cancer: Impact on risk stratification of the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus on Gleason grading
    Radhakrishnan, S.
    Yadav, A.
    Musa, F.
    Malone, P.
    Jones, A.
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2010, 106 (01) : 18 - 18
  • [30] Impact of the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Modified Gleason Grading on Previously Diagnosed Gleason Score 6 Prostate Cancers in Radical Prostatectomies
    Choy, Bonnie
    Pearce, Shane M.
    Anderson, Blake B.
    Paner, Gladell P.
    LABORATORY INVESTIGATION, 2017, 97 : 218A - 218A