From Gleason to International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading of prostate cancer

References

• Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Lamb DS. Gleason grading: consensus and controversy. Pathology 2009;41:613–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gleason DF. Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother Rep 1966;50:125–8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Epstein JI, Allsbrook Jr, WC, Amin MB, Egevad L, ISUP Grading Committee. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005;29:1228–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Billis A, Quintal MM, Meirelles L, Freitas LL, Costa LB, Bonfitto JF, et al. The value of the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) modified Gleason grading system as a predictor of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Int Urol Nephrol 2014;46:935–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ozok HU, Sagnak L, Tuygun C, Oktay M, Karakoyunlu N, Ersoy H et al. Will the modification of the Gleason grading system affect the urology practice? Int J Surg Pathol 2010;18:248–54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsivian M, Sun L, Mouraviev V, Madden JF, Mayes JM, Moul JW, et al. Changes in Gleason score grading and their effect in predicting outcome after radical prostatectomy. Urology 2009;74:1090–3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uemura H, Hoshino K, Sasaki T, Miyoshi Y, Ishiguro H, Inayama Y, et al. Usefulness of the 2005 International Society of Urologic Pathology Gleason grading system in prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. BJU Int 2009;103:1190–4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Billis A, Guimaraes MS, Freitas LL, Meirelles L, Magna LA, Ferreira U. The impact of the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology consensus conference on standard Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in needle biopsies. J Urol 2008;180:548–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helpap B, Egevad L. The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Virchows Arch 2006;449:622–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarbay BC, Kir G, Topal CS, Gumus E. Significance of the cribriform pattern in prostatic adenocarcinomas. Pathol Res Pract 2014;210:554–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kir G, Sarbay BC, Gümüş E, Topal CS. The association of the cribriform pattern with outcome for prostatic adenocarcinomas. Pathol Res Pract 2014;210:640–4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA, The Grading Committee. 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;40:244–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bailar JC 3rd, Mellinger GT, Gleason DF. Survival rates of patients with prostatic cancer, tumor stage, and differentiation – preliminary report. Cancer Chemother Rep 1966;5:129–36.
   Google Scholar
• Gleason DF, Mellinger GT. Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol 1974;111:58–64.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gleason DF. Histological grading and clinical staging of prostatic carcinoma. In: Tannenbaum M, ed. Urologic Pathology: The Prostate. Philadelphia: Lea & Feibiger; 1977:171–98.
   Google Scholar
• Gleason DF. Histologic grading of prostate cancer: a perspective. Hum Pathol 1992;23:273–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delahunt B, Miller RJ, Srigley JR, Evans AJ, Samaratunga H. Gleason grading: past, present and future. Histopathology 2012;60:75–86.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuroiwa K1, Uchino H, Yokomizo A, Naito S. Impact of reporting rules of biopsy Gleason score for prostate cancer. J Clin Pathol 2009;62:260–3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delahunt B, Lamb DS, Srigley JR, Murray JD, Wilcox C, Samaratunga H, et al. Gleason scoring: a comparison of classical and modified (International Society of Urological Pathology) criteria using nadir PSA as a clinical end point. Pathology 201042:339–43.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keefe DT, Schieda N, El Hallani S, Breau RH, Morash C, Robertson SJ, et al. Cribriform morphology predicts upstaging after radical prostatectomy in patients with Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 prostate cancer at transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided needle biopsy. Virchows Arch 2015;467:437–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kweldam CF, Wildhagen MF, Steyerberg EW, Bangma CH, van der Kwast TH, van Leenders GJ. Cribriform growth is highly predictive for postoperative metastasis and disease-specific death in Gleason score 7 prostate cancer. Mod Pathol 2015;28:457–64.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latour M, Amin MB, Billis A, Egevad L, Grignon DJ, Humphrey PA et al. Grading of invasive cribriform carcinoma on prostate needle biopsy: an interobserver study among experts in genitourinary pathology. Am J Surg Pathol 2008;32:1532–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berney DM. The case for modifying the Gleason grading system. Histopathology 2007;100:725–6.
   Google Scholar
• Sands ME, Zagars GK, Pollack A, von Eschenbach AC. Serum prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, pathologic grade, and the incidence of nodal metastases in prostate cancer. Urology 1994;44:215–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLean M, Srigley J, Banerjee D, Warde P, Hao Y. Interobserver variation in prostate cancer Gleason scoring: are there implications for the design of clinical trials and treatment strategies? Clin Oncol 1997;9:222–5.
   Google Scholar
• Banerjee M, Biswas D, Sakr W, Wood DP Jr. Recursive partitioning for prognostic grouping of patients with clinically localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer 2000;89:404–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Partin AW, Kattan MW, Subomg ENP, Walsh PC, Wojno KJ, Oesterling JE, et al. Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer: a multi-institutional update. JAMA 1997;277:1445–51.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zagars GK, von Eschenbach AC. Prostate-specific antigen. An important marker for prostate cancer treated by external beam radiation therapy. Cancer 1993;72:538–48.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egevad L, Delahunt B, Evans AJ, Grignon DJ, Kench JG, Kristiansen G, et al. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading of prostate cancer. Am J Surg Pathol 2016;40:858–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donohue JF, Bianco FJ Jr, Kuroiwa K, Vickers AJ, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT, et al. Poorly differentiated prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy: long-term outcome and incidence of pathological downgrading. J Urol 2006;176:991–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tolonen TT, Kujala PM, Tammela TLJ, Tuominen VJ, Isola JJ, Visakorpi T. Overall and worst Gleason scores are equally good predictors of prostate cancer progression. BMC Urol 2011;11:21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eifler JB, Feng Z, Lin BM, Partin MT, Humphreys EB, Han M, et al. An updated prostate cancer staging nomogram (Partin tables) based on cases from 2006 to 2011. BJU Int 2013;111:22–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delahunt B, Egevad L, Srigley JR, Steigler A, Murray JD, Atkinson C, et al. Validation of International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading for prostatic adenocarcinoma in thin core biopsies using TROG 03.04 'RADAR' trial clinical data. Pathology 2015;47:520–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samaratunga H, Delahunt B, Gianduzzo T, Coughlin G, Duffy D, LeFevre I, et al The prognostic significance of the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading system for prostate cancer. Pathology 2015;47:515–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berney DM, Beltran L, Fisher G, North BV, Greenberg D, Moller H, et al. Validation of a contemporary prostate cancert grading system using cancer death as outcome. Br J Cancer 2016;114:1078–83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD, Nelson JB, Egevad L, Magi-Galluzzi C, et al. A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason score. Eur Urol 2016;69:428–35.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kır G, Seneldir H, Gumus E. Outcomes of Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 prostate cancer with minimal amounts (<6%) vs ≥6% of Gleason pattern 4 tissue in needle biopsy specimens. Ann Diagn Pathol 2015;20:48–51.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sauter G, Steurer S, Clauditz TS, Krech T, Wittmer C, Lutz F, et al Clinical utility of quantitative Gleason grading in prostate biopsies and prostatectomy specimens. Eur Urol 2016;69:592–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Humphrey P, Amin MB, Berney D, Billis A, Cao D, Cheng L. et al. Acinar adenocarcinoma. In Moch H, Humphrey PA, Ulbright T and Reuter VE, eds. Pathology and Genetics: Tumors of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs: WHO classification of Tumors. 4th ed., Zurich, Switzerland: IARC Press; 2015:3–28.
   Google Scholar
• Siadat F, Sykes J, Zlotta AR, Aldaoud N, Egawa S, Pushkar D, et al. Not all Gleason pattern 4 prostate cancers are created equal: a study of latent prostatic carcinomas in a cystoprostatectomy and autopsy series. Prostate 2015;75:1277–84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahal BA, Muralidhar V, Chen YW, Choueiri TK, Hoffman KE, Hu JC, et al. Gleason score 5 + 3 = 8 prostate cancer: much more like Gleason score 9? BJU Int 2016;118:95–101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huynh MA, Chen M-H, Wu J, Braccioforte MC, Moran BJ, D’Amico AV. Gleason score 3 + 5 or 5 + 3 versus 4 + 4 prostate cancer: the risk of death. Eur Urol 2016;69:976–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lim SK, Kim KH, Shin TY, Chung BH, Hong SJ, Choi YD, et al. Gleason 5 + 4 has worse oncological and pathological outcomes compared with Gleason 4 + 5: significance of Gleason 5 pattern. Ann Surg Oncol 2013;20:3127–32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amin MB, Lin DW, Gore JL, Srigley JR, Samaratunga H, Egevad L, et al. The critical role of the pathologist in determining eligibility for active surveillance as a management option in patients with prostate cancer: consensus statement with recommendations supported by The College of American Pathologists, International Society of Urological Pathology, Association of Directors of Anatomical and Surgical Pathology, The New Zealand Society of Pathologists and the Prostate Cancer Foundation. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2014;138:1387–405.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stark JR, Perner S, Stampfer MJ, Sinnott JA, Finn S, Eisenstein AS, et al. Gleason score and lethal cancer: does 3 + 4=4 + 3? J Clin Oncol 2009;27:3459–64.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar