Prostate cancer grading: A decade after the 2005 modified gleason grading system

Oleksandr N. Kryvenko, Jonathan I. Epstein

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Since 1966, when Donald Gleason, MD, first proposed grading prostate cancer based on its histologic architecture, there have been numerous changes in clinical and pathologic practices relating to prostate cancer. Patterns 1 and 2, comprising more than 30% of cases in the original publications by Gleason, are no longer reported on biopsy and are rarely diagnosed on radical prostatectomy. Many of these cases may even have been mimickers of prostate cancer that were described later with the use of contemporary immunohistochemistry. The original Gleason system predated many newly described variants of prostate cancer and our current concept of intraductal carcinoma. Gleason also did not describe how to report prostate cancer on biopsy with multiple cores of cancer or on radical prostatectomy with separate tumor nodules. To address these issues, the International Society of Urological Pathology first made revisions to the grading system in 2005, and subsequently in 2014. Additionally, a new grading system composed of Grade Groups 1 to 5 that was first developed in 2013 at the Johns Hopkins Hospital and subsequently validated in a large multi-institutional and multimodal study was presented at the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology meeting and accepted both by participating pathologists as well as urologists, oncologists, and radiation therapists. In the present study, we describe updates to the grading of prostate cancer along with the new grading system.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1153-1156
Number of pages4
JournalArchives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
Volume140
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2016

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine
  • Medical Laboratory Technology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Prostate cancer grading: A decade after the 2005 modified gleason grading system'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this