In 2014 the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) supported to change the ISUP-2005 modified Gleason scoring system, as previously proposed by Pierorazio et al.[1,2] Besides decisions on terminology and scoring of specific morphological patterns, a renumbering of the existing scores was suggested.
FREE DAILY AND WEEKLY NEWSLETTERS OFFERED BY CONTENT OF INTEREST
Did you find this article relevant? Subscribe to UroToday-GUOncToday!
The fields of GU Oncology and Urology are advancing rapidly including new treatments, enrolling clinical trials, screening and surveillance recommendations along with updated guidelines. Join us as one of our subscribers who rely on UroToday as their must-read source for the latest news and data on drugs. Sign up today for blogs, video conversations, conference highlights and abstracts from peer-review publications by disease and condition delivered to your inbox and read on the go.
 In clinical practice this comprises a transformation from a 6-10 risk spectrum including 9 different Gleason scores (3+3=6, 3+4=7, 4+3=7, 3+5=8 4+4=8, 5+3=8, 4+5=9, 5+4=9, and 5+5=10) to a 1-5 score with 5 grade groups (1: ≤3+3, 2: 3+4, 3: 4+3, 4: Gleason scores 8, and 5: Gleason score 9-10). This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
BJU international. 2016 Mar 12 [Epub ahead of print]
Roderick Cn van den Bergh, Theo H van der Kwast, Jeroen de Jong, Homayoun Zargar, Andrew J Ryan, Anthony J Costello, Declan G Murphy, Henk G van der Poel
Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia., Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada., Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands., Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia., TissuPath Specialist Pathology, Victoria, Australia., Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia., Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia., Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.