DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20190342

New perspectives in modified Gleason’s grading for prostatic cancer and its comparison with original Gleason’s

Sajjan Gupta, Ishan Dubey, Vandana Agarwal, Shalakha Agarwal

Abstract


Background: The Gleason score is the most widely accepted histopathological grading system for prostate cancer since decade despite having many deficiency that can potentially impact patient health care. So ISUP agreed on developing a system of prognostic grade groups from I-V. Aim and objective was to study the new perspectives of modified Gleason’s grading and to compare it with original Gleason’s System with focus on the prognostic significance of the modifications.

Methods: A retrospective study of 60 patients, who underwent TURP and Sextant biopsy and diagnosed as prostatic carcinoma in our institute were included in this study. Laboratory requisition forms with clinical history, PSA levels and histopathology reports of these patients were reviewed and graded accordingly to the newer gleasons. New Gleason grade includes five distinct Grade Groups based on the modified Gleason score groups. Grade Group 1 = Gleason score ≤6, Grade Group 2 = Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7, Grade Group 3 = Gleason score 4 + 3 = 7, Grade Group 4 = Gleason score 8, Grade Group 5 = Gleason scores 9 and 10 were assigned. The change in the grading system is tabulated and compared separately.

Results: Patients age ranged from 55-80 years. The number of cases were 3,12,15,19 and 11 categorized under grade group I, grade group II, grade group III, grade group IV, grade group V cancer respectively according to modified gleason grading.

Conclusions: Modified Gleason is a simplified grading system which may reduce over treatment of indolent prostate cancer. New gleasons grading clarifies the clinicians about the dilemma of gleason scores, offering an excellent prognostic stratification of this carcinoma.


Keywords


Gleason grading, Gleason score, Modified, New perspectives, Prognosis, Prostatic cancer

Full Text:

PDF

References


Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA: a Cancer J Clinicians. 2018 Nov;68(6):394-424.

Varghese J, Kuruvilla PM, Mehta N, Singh R. Incidentally detected adenocarcinoma prostate in transurethral resection of prostate specimens: a hospital based study from India. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2016;17(4):2255-58.

Sakamoto H, Matsumoto K, Hayakawa N, Maeda T, Sato A. Preoperative parameters to predict incidental (T1a and T1b) prostate cancer. Can Urol Assoc J. 2014;8(11-12):815-20.

Gleason DF, Mellinger GT. Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol. 1974;111(1):58-64.

Baydar DE, Epstein JI. Gleason Grading System: Modifications and additions to the original scheme. Turkish J Pathol. 2009;25(3):59-7.

Kryvenko ON and Epstein JI. Prostate cancer grading a decade after the 2005 modified Gleason grading system. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2016;140:1140-52.

Gordetsky J, Epstein J. Grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma: current state and prognostic implications. Diagnostic Pathol. 2016;11(25):1-8.

Egevad L, Mazzucchelli R, Montiron R. Implications of the international society of urological pathology modified Gleason grading system. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2012;136:426-34.

Loeb S, Montorsi F, Catto JW. Future-proofing Gleason Grading: What to Call Gleason 6 Prostate Cancer? Euro Urol. 2015;68:1-5.

Chen N and Zhou Q. The evolving Gleason grading system. Chin J Cancer Res. 2016;28(1):58-64.

Pierorazio PM, Walsh PC, Partin AW. Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int. 2013;111:753-60.

Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B. 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. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40(2):244-52.

Kryvenko ON, Epstein JI. Changes in prostate cancer grading: Including a new patient centric grading system. Prostate. 2016;76:427-33.

Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA. 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. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40(2):244-52.

Steinberg DM, Sauvageot J, Piantadosi S, Epstein JI. Correlation of prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason grade in academic and community settings. Am J Surg Pathol. 1997;21(5):566-76.

Fine SW, Epstein JI. A contemporary study correlating prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason score. J Urol. 2008;179(4):1335-8.

Fajardo DA, Miyamoto H, Miller JS, Lee TK, Epstein JI. Identification of Gleason pattern 5 on prostatic needle core biopsy: frequency of under diagnosis and relation to morphology. Am J Surg Pathol. 2011;35(11):1706-11.

Andren O, Fall K, Franzen L, Andersson SO, Johansson JE, Rubin MA. How well does the Gleason score predict prostate cancer death? A 20-year followup of a population-based cohort in Sweden. J Urol. 2006;175(4):1337-40.

Bostwick DG, Grignon DJ, Hammond ME, Amin MB, Cohen M, Crawford D, et al. Prognostic factors in prostate cancer. College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;124(7):995-1000.

Pierorazio PM, Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI. Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int. 2013;111:753-60.

Miyamoto H, Hernandez DJ, Epstein JI. A pathological reassessment of organ-confined, Gleason score 6 prostatic adenocarcinomas that progress after radical prostatectomy. Hum Pathol. 2009;40:1693-8.

Burdick MJ, Reddy CA, Ulchaker J, Angermeier K, Altman A, Chehade N, et al. Comparison of biochemical relapse-free survival between primary Gleason score 3 and primary Gleason score 4 for biopsy Gleason score 7 prostate cancer. Int J Radia Oncol Biol Physics. 2009 Apr 1;73(5):1439-45.

Chan TY, Partin AW, Walsh PC, Epstein JI. Prognostic significance of Gleason score 3 + 4 versus Gleason score 4 + 3 tumor at radical prostatectomy. Urol. 2000;56:823-7.

Kang DE, Fitzsimons NJ, Presti Jr JC, Kane CJ, Terris MK, Aronson WJ, et al. Risk stratification of men with Gleason score 7 to 10 tumors by primary and secondary Gleason score: results from the SEARCH database. Urol. 2007 Aug 1;70(2):277-82.

True L, Coleman I, Hawley S, Huang CY, Gifford D, Coleman R, et al. A molecular correlate to the Gleason grading system for prostate adenocarcinoma. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2006;103(29):10991-6.

Kim H, Lapointe J, Kaygusuz G, Ong DE, Li C, van de Rijn M, et al. The retinoic acid synthesis gene ALDH1a2 is a candidate tumour suppressor in prostate cancer. Cancer Res. 2005;65(18):8118-24.

Tomlins SA, Rhodes DR, Perner S, Dhanasekaran SM, Mehra R, Sun XW, et al. Recurrent fusion of TMPRSS2 and ETS transcription factor genes in prostate cancer. Sci. 2005;310(5748):644-8.

Gevaert T, Van Poppel H, Joniau S, De Ridder D, Lerut E. Current perspectives on the use of the Gleason grading system for prostate cancer. Belgian J Med Oncol. 2012 Apr 1;6(2):45-51.