The Gleason grading system provides important information for guiding prostate cancer patients' management and prognostication. The grading system underwent significant modifications over the past decade. In 2005 and more recently in 2014, the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) held two consensus conferences to update prostate cancer grading. Recently, five prognostic grade groups have been proposed to be used in parallel to the Gleason grading system. The purpose of this review is to highlight the key changes in the Gleason grading system and the utility of the grade groups to better reflect biologic behavior for both patients and clinicians.
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.
At the 2014 ISUP consensus conference, prostate cancer Gleason grading was updated and a previously proposed concept of five prognostic grade groups, from 1 to 5 was supported. The Grade Groups, used in parallel to the modified Gleason grading system, translate Gleason scores in five distinct risk categories where Grade Group 1 is defined as Gleason score 6 or less, Grade Group 2 as Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7, Grade Group 3 as Gleason score 4 + 3 = 7, Grade Group 4 as Gleason score 4 + 4 = 8, and Grade Group 5 as Gleason score 9/10. This 5-tiered grade group system better reflects biologic behavior and guides clinical care. The Grade Groups have been endorsed by the ISUP and the World Health Organization. The performance of the Grade Groups has been examined in several recent studies.
This review summarizes developments over the last year in the use of grade groups and outlines their value in clinical practice.
Current opinion in urology. 2016 Jun 14 [Epub ahead of print]
Cristina Magi-Galluzzi, Rodolfo Montironi, Jonathan I Epstein
aPathology and Laboratory Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA bSection of Pathological Anatomy, Polytechnic University of the Marche Region, School of Medicine, United Hospitals, Ancona, Italy cDepartments of Pathology, Urology, and Oncology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.