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

Imagem de Miniatura
Arquivos
art_EPSTEIN_The_2014_International_Society_of_Urological_Pathology_ISUP_2016.PDF (601.72 KB)
Citações na Scopus
2294
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2016
Editora
LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI
Indexadores
Scopus
Web of Science
PubMed
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Autores
EPSTEIN, Jonathan I.
EGEVAD, Lars
AMIN, Mahul B.
DELAHUNT, Brett
SRIGLEY, John R.
HUMPHREY, Peter A.
Autor de Grupo de pesquisa
Grading Comm
Editores
Coordenadores
Organizadores
Citação
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL PATHOLOGY, v.40, n.2, p.244-252, 2016
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
In November, 2014, 65 prostate cancer pathology experts, along with 17 clinicians including urologists, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists from 19 different countries gathered in a consensus conference to update the grading of prostate cancer, last revised in 2005. The major conclusions were: (1) Cribriform glands should be assigned a Gleason pattern 4, regardless of morphology; (2) Glomeruloid glands should be assigned a Gleason pattern 4, regardless of morphology; (3) Grading of mucinous carcinoma of the prostate should be based on its underlying growth pattern rather than grading them all as pattern 4; and (4) Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate without invasive carcinoma should not be assigned a Gleason grade and a comment as to its invariable association with aggressive prostate cancer should be made. Regarding morphologies of Gleason patterns, there was clear consensus on: (1) Gleason pattern 4 includes cribriform, fused, and poorly formed glands; (2) The term hypernephromatoid cancer should not be used; (3) For a diagnosis of Gleason pattern 4, it needs to be seen at 10x lens magnification; (4) Occasional/seemingly poorly formed or fused glands between well-formed glands is insufficient for a diagnosis of pattern 4; (5) In cases with borderline morphology between Gleason pattern 3 and pattern 4 and crush artifacts, the lower grade should be favored; (6) Branched glands are allowed in Gleason pattern 3; (7) Small solid cylinders represent Gleason pattern 5; (8) Solid medium to large nests with rosette-like spaces should be considered to represent Gleason pattern 5; and (9) Presence of unequivocal comedonecrosis, even if focal is indicative of Gleason pattern 5. It was recognized by both pathologists and clinicians that despite the above changes, there were deficiencies with the Gleason system. The Gleason grading system ranges from 2 to 10, yet 6 is the lowest score currently assigned. When patients are told that they have a Gleason score 6 out of 10, it implies that their prognosis is intermediate and contributes to their fear of having a more aggressive cancer. Also, in the literature and for therapeutic purposes, various scores have been incorrectly grouped together with the assumption that they have a similar prognosis. For example, many classification systems consider Gleason score 7 as a single score without distinguishing 3+4 versus 4+3, despite studies showing significantly worse prognosis for the latter. The basis for a new grading system was proposed in 2013 by one of the authors (J.I.E.) based on data from Johns Hopkins Hospital resulting in 5 prognostically distinct Grade Groups. This new system was validated in a multi-institutional study of over 20,000 radical prostatectomy specimens, over 16,000 needle biopsy specimens, and over 5,000 biopsies followed by radiation therapy. There was broad (90%) consensus for the adoption of this new prostate cancer Grading system in the 2014 consensus conference based on: (1) the new classification provided more accurate stratification of tumors than the current system; (2) the classification simplified the number of grading categories from Gleason scores 2 to 10, with even more permutations based on different pattern combinations, to Grade Groups 1 to 5; (3) the lowest grade is 1 not 6 as in Gleason, with the potential to reduce overtreatment of indolent cancer; and (4) the current modified Gleason grading, which forms the basis for the new grade groups, bears little resemblance to the original Gleason system. The new grades would, for the foreseeable future, be used in conjunction with the Gleason system [ie. Gleason score 3+3=6 (Grade Group 1)]. The new grading system and the terminology Grade Groups 1-5 have also been accepted by the World Health Organization for the 2016 edition of Pathology and Genetics: Tumours of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs.
Palavras-chave
prostate cancer, grading, Gleason
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/32967
Referências
  1. Bailar J C 3rd, 1966, Cancer Chemother Rep, V50, P129
  2. Berman DM, 2014, UROL CLIN N AM, V41, P339, DOI 10.1016/j.ucl.2014.01.006
  3. Bill-Axelson A, 2014, NEW ENGL J MED, V370, P932, DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa1311593
  4. Carter HB, 2012, J CLIN ONCOL, V30, P4294, DOI 10.1200/JCO.2012.44.0586
  5. Chan TY, 2000, UROLOGY, V56, P823, DOI 10.1016/S0090-4295(00)00753-6
  6. D'Amico AV, 1998, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V280, P969, DOI 10.1001/jama.280.11.969
  7. Epstein JI, 2005, AM J SURG PATHOL, V29, P1228, DOI 10.1097/01.pas.0000173646.99337.b1
  8. Epstein JI, 2015, EUR UROL
  9. Epstein JI, 2012, EUR UROL, V61, P1019, DOI 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.01.050
  10. Esserman LJ, 2014, LANCET ONCOL, V15, pE234, DOI 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70598-9
  11. Fine SW, 2008, J UROLOGY, V179, P1335, DOI 10.1016/j.juro.2007.11.057
  12. Ghani KR, 2005, EUR UROL, V47, P196, DOI 10.1016/j.eururo.2004.07.029
  13. GLEASON DF, 1974, J UROLOGY, V111, P58, DOI 10.1016/S0022-5347(17)59889-4
  14. GLEASON DONALD F., 1966, CANCER CHEMO THERAP REP, V50, P125
  15. Gonzalgo ML, 2006, UROLOGY, V67, P115, DOI 10.1016/j.urology.2005.07.037
  16. Grober Ethan D, 2004, Can J Urol, V11, P2157
  17. Guo CC, 2006, MODERN PATHOL, V19, P1528, DOI 10.1038/modpathol.3800702
  18. Helpap B, 2006, VIRCHOWS ARCH, V449, P622, DOI 10.1007/s00428-006-0310-6
  19. Iczkowski KA, 2011, AM J CLIN PATHOL, V136, P98, DOI 10.1309/AJCPZ7WBU9YXSJPE
  20. Kang DE, 2007, UROLOGY, V70, P277, DOI 10.1016/j.urology.2007.03.059
  21. Khani F, 2015, AM J SURG PATHOL
  22. Kimura K, 2014, PROSTATE, V74, P680, DOI 10.1002/pros.22786
  23. Kir G, 2014, PATHOL RES PRACT, V210, P640, DOI 10.1016/j.prp.2014.06.002
  24. KOVI J, 1985, CANCER, V56, P1566, DOI 10.1002/1097-0142(19851001)56:7<1566::AID-CNCR2820560717>3.0.CO;2-Y
  25. Kryvenko ON, 2013, ARCH PATHOL LAB MED, V137, P610, DOI 10.5858/arpa.2012-0128-OA
  26. Kweldam CF, 2015, MODERN PATHOL, V28, P457, DOI 10.1038/modpathol.2014.116
  27. Lane BR, 2006, UROLOGY, V68, P825, DOI 10.1016/j.urology.2006.04.028
  28. Latour M, 2008, AM J SURG PATHOL, V32, P1532, DOI 10.1097/PAS.0b013e318169e8fd
  29. Lau WK, 2001, J UROLOGY, V166, P1692, DOI 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)65655-8
  30. Lotan TL, 2009, HUM PATHOL, V40, P471, DOI 10.1016/j.humpath.2008.10.002
  31. Makarov DV, 2002, J UROLOGY, V167, P2440, DOI 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)65000-8
  32. McNeal JE, 1996, AM J SURG PATHOL, V20, P802, DOI 10.1097/00000478-199607000-00003
  33. Mellinger G T, 1977, Recent Results Cancer Res, P61
  34. MELLINGER GT, 1967, J UROLOGY, V97, P331, DOI 10.1016/S0022-5347(17)63039-8
  35. Merrick GS, 2002, UROLOGY, V60, P98, DOI 10.1016/S0090-4295(02)01640-0
  36. Miyai K, 2014, INT J CLIN EXP PATHO, V7, P2518
  37. Osunkoya AO, 2008, AM J SURG PATHOL, V32, P468, DOI 10.1097/PAS.0b013e3181589f72
  38. Pierorazio PM, 2013, BJU INT, V111, P753, DOI 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11611.x
  39. Resnick MJ, 2013, NEW ENGL J MED, V368, P436, DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa1209978
  40. Robinson BD, 2010, J UROLOGY, V184, P1328, DOI 10.1016/j.juro.2010.06.017
  41. Ross HM, 2012, AM J SURG PATHOL, V36, P1346, DOI 10.1097/PAS.0b013e3182556dcd
  42. Sabolch A, 2011, INT J RADIAT ONCOL, V81, pE351, DOI 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.01.063
  43. Sakr WA, 2000, UROLOGY, V56, P730, DOI 10.1016/S0090-4295(00)00791-3
  44. Sarbay BC, 2014, PATHOL RES PRACT, V210, P554, DOI 10.1016/j.prp.2014.03.003
  45. Spratt DE, 2013, INT J RADIAT ONCOL, V85, P1254, DOI 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.10.013
  46. Stark JR, 2009, J CLIN ONCOL, V27, P3459, DOI 10.1200/JCO.2008.20.4669
  47. Steinberg DM, 1997, AM J SURG PATHOL, V21, P566, DOI 10.1097/00000478-199705000-00010
  48. Stenmark MH, 2011, INT J RADIAT ONCOL, V81, pE335, DOI 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.04.037
  49. Stock RG, 2006, INT J RADIAT ONCOL, V64, P810, DOI 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.09.005
  50. Stone NN, 2011, J UROLOGY, V185, P495, DOI 10.1016/j.juro.2010.09.099
  51. Sylvester JE, 2011, INT J RADIAT ONCOL, V81, P376, DOI 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.05.042
  52. Trudel D, 2014, EUR J CANCER, V50, P1610, DOI 10.1016/j.ejca.2014.03.009
  53. Van der Kwast T, 2012, EUR J CANCER, V48, P1318, DOI 10.1016/j.ejca.2012.02.003
  54. Watts K, 2013, HISTOPATHOLOGY, V63, P574, DOI 10.1111/his.12198
  55. Wilt TJ, 2012, NEW ENGL J MED, V367, P203, DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa1113162
  56. Wright JL, 2009, J UROLOGY, V182, P2702, DOI 10.1016/j.juro.2009.08.026
  57. Zhao T, 2015, PROSTATE, V75, P225, DOI 10.1002/pros.22906
  58. Zumsteg ZS, 2013, EUR UROL, V64, P895, DOI 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.033

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - FM/MCG
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/55
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - ODS/03