The reasons behind variation in Gleason grading of prostatic biopsies: areas of agreement and misconception among 266 European pathologists
- 14 September 2013
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Histopathology
- Vol. 64 (3), 405-411
- https://doi.org/10.1111/his.12284
Abstract
Aims The Gleason scoring system underwent revision at the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) conference in 2005. It is not known how uropathologists have interpreted its recommendations. Method and results A web‐based survey to European Network of Uropathology members received replies from 266 pathologists in 22 countries. Eighty‐nine per cent claimed to follow ISUP recommendations. Key areas of disagreement included the following. Smoothly rounded cribriform glands were assigned Gleason pattern (GP) 3 by 51% and GP 4 by 49%. Necrosis was diagnosed as GP 5 by 62%. Any amount of secondary pattern of higher grade in needle biopsies was included in the Gleason score by 58%. Tertiary GP of higher grade on needle biopsies was included in the Gleason score by only 58%. If biopsy cores were embedded separately, only 56% would give a Gleason score for each core/slide examined; 68% would give a concluding Gleason score and the most common method was a global Gleason score (77%). Among those who blocked multiple biopsy cores together, 46% would only give an overall Gleason score for the case. Conclusion Misinterpretation of ISUP 2005 is widespread, and may explain the variation in Gleason scoring seen. Clarity and uniformity in teaching ISUP 2005 recommendations is necessary.Keywords
This publication has 30 references indexed in Scilit:
- Impact on the Clinical Outcome of Prostate Cancer by the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology Modified Gleason Grading SystemThe American Journal of Surgical Pathology, 2012
- Gleason grading: past, present and futureHistopathology, 2011
- Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: knowledge, acceptance and practice among urologistsProstate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, 2011
- Validation of Partin Tables and Development of a Preoperative Nomogram for Japanese Patients With Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Using 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology Consensus on Gleason Grading: Data From the Clinicopathological Research Group for Localized Prostate CancerJournal of Urology, 2008
- Major shifts in the treatment and prognosis of prostate cancer due to changes in pathological diagnosis and gradingBJU International, 2007
- Low Gleason score prostatic adenocarcinomas are no longer viable entitiesHistopathology, 2006
- The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimensVirchows Archiv A Pathological Anatomy and Histopathology, 2006
- Long-term outcome among men with conservatively treated localised prostate cancerBritish Journal of Cancer, 2006
- Prostate Cancer and the Will Rogers PhenomenonJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2005
- Gleason Score 2–4 Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate on Needle BiopsyThe American Journal of Surgical Pathology, 2000