The Gleason grading system

Where are we now?

Rodolfo Montironi, Roberta Mazzucchelli, Antonio Lopez-Beltran, Marina Scarpelli, Liang Cheng

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The most commonly used pathologic grading system for prostatic carcinoma (PCa) was first described by Donald F. Gleason in 1966. It is remarkable that, more than 40 years after the inception of the Gleason grading system, it remains one of the most powerful prognostic factors in prostate cancer. In part, this system has remained timely by gradual adaptations of the system to accommodate the changing practice of medicine. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) conference helped to codify these adaptations as well as gain consensus in areas where there was divergence in practice. The consensus conference and subsequent articles proposing further modifications help pathologists adapt the Gleason grading system to current day practice in a more uniform manner. In particular, narrowing the scope of pattern 3 carcinoma and widening the scope of pattern 4 carcinoma have played an important role in improving the prognostic value and inter-observer reproducibility of Gleason's system. Whether these changes have a significant impact on the clinical treatment of the disease remains to be seen. The differences between the original Gleason grading system and the 2005 ISUP modified Gleason system make difficult to compare data sets assessing patient outcomes in PCa over time.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)419-427
Number of pages9
JournalDiagnostic Histopathology
Volume17
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2011

Fingerprint

Neoplasm Grading
Carcinoma
Pathology
Prostatic Neoplasms
Medicine
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • 2005 ISUP Gleason system
  • Gleason
  • Gleason grading
  • International Society of Urological Pathology
  • Prostate cancer

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine
  • Histology

Cite this

Montironi, R., Mazzucchelli, R., Lopez-Beltran, A., Scarpelli, M., & Cheng, L. (2011). The Gleason grading system: Where are we now? Diagnostic Histopathology, 17(10), 419-427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mpdhp.2011.06.008

The Gleason grading system : Where are we now? / Montironi, Rodolfo; Mazzucchelli, Roberta; Lopez-Beltran, Antonio; Scarpelli, Marina; Cheng, Liang.

In: Diagnostic Histopathology, Vol. 17, No. 10, 10.2011, p. 419-427.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Montironi, R, Mazzucchelli, R, Lopez-Beltran, A, Scarpelli, M & Cheng, L 2011, 'The Gleason grading system: Where are we now?', Diagnostic Histopathology, vol. 17, no. 10, pp. 419-427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mpdhp.2011.06.008
Montironi R, Mazzucchelli R, Lopez-Beltran A, Scarpelli M, Cheng L. The Gleason grading system: Where are we now? Diagnostic Histopathology. 2011 Oct;17(10):419-427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mpdhp.2011.06.008
Montironi, Rodolfo ; Mazzucchelli, Roberta ; Lopez-Beltran, Antonio ; Scarpelli, Marina ; Cheng, Liang. / The Gleason grading system : Where are we now?. In: Diagnostic Histopathology. 2011 ; Vol. 17, No. 10. pp. 419-427.
@article{1b78817f09324d4c91699a599b089178,
title = "The Gleason grading system: Where are we now?",
abstract = "The most commonly used pathologic grading system for prostatic carcinoma (PCa) was first described by Donald F. Gleason in 1966. It is remarkable that, more than 40 years after the inception of the Gleason grading system, it remains one of the most powerful prognostic factors in prostate cancer. In part, this system has remained timely by gradual adaptations of the system to accommodate the changing practice of medicine. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) conference helped to codify these adaptations as well as gain consensus in areas where there was divergence in practice. The consensus conference and subsequent articles proposing further modifications help pathologists adapt the Gleason grading system to current day practice in a more uniform manner. In particular, narrowing the scope of pattern 3 carcinoma and widening the scope of pattern 4 carcinoma have played an important role in improving the prognostic value and inter-observer reproducibility of Gleason's system. Whether these changes have a significant impact on the clinical treatment of the disease remains to be seen. The differences between the original Gleason grading system and the 2005 ISUP modified Gleason system make difficult to compare data sets assessing patient outcomes in PCa over time.",
keywords = "2005 ISUP Gleason system, Gleason, Gleason grading, International Society of Urological Pathology, Prostate cancer",
author = "Rodolfo Montironi and Roberta Mazzucchelli and Antonio Lopez-Beltran and Marina Scarpelli and Liang Cheng",
year = "2011",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1016/j.mpdhp.2011.06.008",
language = "English",
volume = "17",
pages = "419--427",
journal = "Diagnostic Histopathology",
issn = "1756-2317",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Gleason grading system

T2 - Where are we now?

AU - Montironi, Rodolfo

AU - Mazzucchelli, Roberta

AU - Lopez-Beltran, Antonio

AU - Scarpelli, Marina

AU - Cheng, Liang

PY - 2011/10

Y1 - 2011/10

N2 - The most commonly used pathologic grading system for prostatic carcinoma (PCa) was first described by Donald F. Gleason in 1966. It is remarkable that, more than 40 years after the inception of the Gleason grading system, it remains one of the most powerful prognostic factors in prostate cancer. In part, this system has remained timely by gradual adaptations of the system to accommodate the changing practice of medicine. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) conference helped to codify these adaptations as well as gain consensus in areas where there was divergence in practice. The consensus conference and subsequent articles proposing further modifications help pathologists adapt the Gleason grading system to current day practice in a more uniform manner. In particular, narrowing the scope of pattern 3 carcinoma and widening the scope of pattern 4 carcinoma have played an important role in improving the prognostic value and inter-observer reproducibility of Gleason's system. Whether these changes have a significant impact on the clinical treatment of the disease remains to be seen. The differences between the original Gleason grading system and the 2005 ISUP modified Gleason system make difficult to compare data sets assessing patient outcomes in PCa over time.

AB - The most commonly used pathologic grading system for prostatic carcinoma (PCa) was first described by Donald F. Gleason in 1966. It is remarkable that, more than 40 years after the inception of the Gleason grading system, it remains one of the most powerful prognostic factors in prostate cancer. In part, this system has remained timely by gradual adaptations of the system to accommodate the changing practice of medicine. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) conference helped to codify these adaptations as well as gain consensus in areas where there was divergence in practice. The consensus conference and subsequent articles proposing further modifications help pathologists adapt the Gleason grading system to current day practice in a more uniform manner. In particular, narrowing the scope of pattern 3 carcinoma and widening the scope of pattern 4 carcinoma have played an important role in improving the prognostic value and inter-observer reproducibility of Gleason's system. Whether these changes have a significant impact on the clinical treatment of the disease remains to be seen. The differences between the original Gleason grading system and the 2005 ISUP modified Gleason system make difficult to compare data sets assessing patient outcomes in PCa over time.

KW - 2005 ISUP Gleason system

KW - Gleason

KW - Gleason grading

KW - International Society of Urological Pathology

KW - Prostate cancer

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80052606538&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=80052606538&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.mpdhp.2011.06.008

DO - 10.1016/j.mpdhp.2011.06.008

M3 - Article

VL - 17

SP - 419

EP - 427

JO - Diagnostic Histopathology

JF - Diagnostic Histopathology

SN - 1756-2317

IS - 10

ER -