Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Significance of Accurate Determination of Gleason Score for Therapeutic Options and Prognosis of Prostate Cancer

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Pathology & Oncology Research

Abstract

The Gleason score (GS) to date remains one of the most reliable prognostic predictors in prostate cancer (PCa). However, the majority of studies supporting its prognostic relevance were performed prior to its modification by the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) in 2005. Furthermore, the combination of Gleason grading and nuclear/nucleolar subgrading (Helpap score) has been shown to essentially improve grading concordance between biopsy and radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens. This prompted us to investigate the modified GS and combigrading (Gleason/Helpap score) in association with clinicopathological features, biochemical recurrence (BCR), and survival. Core needle biopsies and corresponding RP specimens from 580 patients diagnosed with PCa between 2005 and 2010 were evaluated. According to the modified GS, the comparison between biopsy and RP samples resulted in an upgrading from GS 6 to GS 7a and GS 7b in 65 % and 19 %, respectively. Combigrading further resulted in an upgrading from low grade (GS 6/2a) to intermediate grade PCa (GS 6/2b) in 11.1 % and from intermediate grade (GS 6/2b) to high grade PCa (GS 7b/2b) in 22.6 %. Overall, well-differentiated PCa (GS 6/2a) was detected in 2.8 % of RP specimens, while intermediate grade (GS 6/2b and GS 7a/2b) and high grade cancers (≥ GS 7b) accounted for 39.5 % and 57.4 % of cases, respectively. At a mean follow-up of 3.9 years, BCR was observed in 17.6 % of patients with intermediate (9.8 %) or high grade PCa (30.2 %), while PSA relapse did not occur in GS 6/2a PCa. In conclusion, adding nuclear/nucleolar subgrading to the modified GS allowed for a more accurate distinction between low and intermediate grade PCa, therefore offering a valuable tool for the identification of patients eligible for active surveillance (AS).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Tolonen TT, Kujala PM, Tammela TL, Tuominen VJ, Isola JJ, Visakorpi T (2011) Overall and worst Gleason scores are equally good predictors of prostate cancer progression. BMC Urol 11:21. doi 10.1186/1471-2490-11-21

  2. Epstein JI, Allsbrook SC, Amin MB, Egevad L, and the ISUP Grading Committee (2005) The 2005 international society of urological pathology ISUP consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 29:1228–1242.

  3. Epstein JI (2010) An update of the Gleason grading system. J Urol 183:433–440

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Vira MA, Guzzo T, Heitjan DF, Tomaszewski JE, D'Amico A, Wein AJ, Malkowicz SB (2008) Is the biopsy Gleason score important in predicting outcomes for patients after radical prostatectomy once the pathological Gleason score is known? BJU Int 101:1232–1236

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lau WK, Blute MI, Bostwick DG, Weaver AL, Sebo TI, Zincke H (2001) Prognostic factors for survival of patients with pathological Gleason score 7 prostate cancer: differences in outcome between primary Gleason grades 3 and 4. J Urol 166:1692–1697

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gleason DE (1966) Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother Rep 50:125–128

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Røder MA, Berg KD, Gruschy L, Brasso K, Iversen P (2011) First Danish single-institution experience with radical prostatectomy: biochemical outcome in 1200 consecutive patients. Prostate Cancer 2011:236357. doi:10.1155/2011/236357 Epub 2010 Dec 22

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Amin A, Partin A, Epstein JI (2011) Gleason score 7 prostate cancer on needle biopsy: relation of primary pattern 3 or 4 to pathological stage and progression after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 186:1286–1290

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dong F, Wang C, Farris AB, Wu S, Lee H, Olumi AF, Douglas WS, Young RH, Wu CL (2012) Impact on the clinical outcome of prostate cancer by the 2005 international society of urological pathology modified Gleason grading system. Am J Surg Pathol 36:838–843

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Helpap B, Egevad L (2009) Modified Gleason grading. An updated review. Histol Histopathol 24:661–666

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Makarov DV, Sanderson H, Partin AW, Epstein JI (2002) Gleason score 7 prostate cancer on needle biopsy. Is the prognostic difference in Gleason score 4 + 3 and 3 + 4 independent of the number of involved cores? J Urol 167:2440–2442

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rasiah KK, Stricker PD, Haynes A-M, Delprado W, Turner JJ, Golovsky D, Brenner PC, Kooner R, O’Neill GF, Grygiel JJ, Sutherland RL, Henshall SM (2003) Prognostic significance of Gleason pattern in patients with Gleason score 7 prostate carcinoma. Cancer 98:2560–2565

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chan TY, Partin AW, Walsh PC, Epstein JI (2000) Prognostic significance of Gleason score 3 + 4 versus Gleason score 4 + 3 tumor at radical prostatectomy. Urology 56:823–827

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sakr WA, Tefilli MV, Grignon DJ, Banerjee M, Dey J, Gheiler EL, Tiguert R, Powell IJ, Wood DP (2000) Gleason score 7 prostate cancer: a heterogeneous entity? Correlation with pathologic parameters and disease-free survival. Urology 56:730–734

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lavery HJ, Droller MJ (2012) Do Gleason patterns 3 and 4 prostate cancer represent separate disease states? J Urol 188:1667–1675

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Stark JR, Perner S, Stampfer MJ, Sinnott JA, Finn S, Eisenstein AS, Ma J, Fiorentino M, Kurth T, Loda M, Giovannucci EL, Rubin M, Mucci LA (2009) Gleason score and lethal prostate cancer: does 3 + 4 = 4 + 3? J Clin Oncol 27:3459–3464

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Helpap B, Egevad L (2006) The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Virchows Arch 449:622–627

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Fanning DM, Kay E, Fan Y, Fitzpatrick JM, Watson RW (2010) Prostate cancer grading: the effect of stratification of needle biopsy Gleason score 4 + 3 as high or intermediate grade. BJU Int 105:631–635

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Nayyar R, Singh P, Gupta NP, Hemal AK, Dogra PN, Seth A, Kumar R (2010) Upgrading of Gleason score on radical prostatectomy specimen compared to the pre-operative needle core biopsy: an Indian experience. Indian J Urol 26:56–59

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Egevad L, Mazzucchelli R, Montironi R (2012) Implications of the international society of urological pathology modified Gleason grading system. Arch Pathol Lab Med 136:426–434

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Zareba P, Zhang J, Yilmaz A, Trpkov K (2009) The impact of the 2005 international society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus on Gleason grading in contemporary practice. Histopathology 55:384–391

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Epstein JI, Feng Z, Trock BJ, Pierorazio PM (2012) Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades. Eur Urol 61:1019–1024

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Uemura H, Hoshino K, Sasaki T, Miyoshi Y, Ishiguro H, Inayama Y, Kubota Y (2009) Usefulness of the 2005 international society of urologic pathology Gleason grading system in prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. BJU Int 103:1190–1194

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Billis A, Guimaraes MS, Freitas LL, Meirelles L, Magna LA, Ferreira U (2008) The impact of the 2005 international society of urological pathology consensus conference on standard Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in needle biopsies. J Urol 180:548–552

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Berney DM, Algaba F, Camparo P, Compérat E, Griffiths D, Kristiansen G, Lopez-Beltran A, Montironi R, Varma M, Egevad L (2013) The reasons behind variation in Gleason grading of prostatic biopsies: areas of agreement and misconception among 266 European pathologists. Histopathology 64:405–411

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Helpap B, Kristiansen G, Köllermann J, Shaikhibrahim Z, Wernert N, Oehler U, Fellbaum C (2013) Significance of Gleason grading of low-grade carcinoma of the prostate with therapeutic option of active surveillance. Urol Int 90:17–23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Helpap B, Köllermann J (2012) Combined histoarchitectural and cytological biopsy grading improves grading accuracy in low-grade prostate cancer. Int J Urol 19:126–133

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Bostwick DG, Foster CS, Algaba F, Hutter RVP, Montironi R, Mostofi FK, et al. (2000) Prostate tissue factor. In: Murphy G, Khoury S, Partin A, Denis L (eds) Prostate cancer. Second international consultation on prostate cancer. Plymbridge Distributors Ltd, Paris, pp. 162–201

    Google Scholar 

  29. Mostofi FK, Sesterhenn IA, Davis CJ, in collaboration with LH Sobin and pathologists from 10 countries (2002) Histological typing of prostate tumours in WHO international histological classification of tumours. Springer Berlin-Heidelberg, pp. 14–16.

  30. Van Veggel BAMH, von Ort IM, Witjes JA, Kiemeney LALM, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA (2011) Quantification of extraprostatic extension in prostate cancer: different parameters correlated to biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Histopathology 59:692–702

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Han JS, Toll AD, Amin A, Carter HB, Landis P, Lee S, Epstein JI (2012) Low prostate-specific antigen and no Gleason score upgrade despite more extensive cancer during active surveillance predicts insignificant prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy. Urology 80:883–888

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Epstein JI (2011) Prognostic significance of tumor volume in radical prostatectomy and needle biopsy specimens. J Urol 186:790–797

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Kantoff PW, Carroll PR (2007) Contemporary trends in low risk prostate cancer: risk assessment and treatment. J Urol 178:14–19 Epub 2007 Jul 20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Carroll PR (2010) time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 28:1117–1123. doi:10.1200/JCO.2009.26.0133. Epub 2010 Feb 1.

  35. Helpap B, Ringli D, Shaikhibrahim Z, Wernert N, Kristiansen G (2013) The heterogeneous gleason 7 carcinoma of the prostate: analyses of low and high grade (risk) carcinomas with criteria of the international society of urological pathology (ISUP). Pathol Res Pract 209:190–194

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Cheng L, Montironi R, Bostwick DG, Lopez-Beltran A, Berney DM (2012) Staging of prostate cancer. Histopathology 60:87–117

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Müntener M, Epstein JI, Hernandez DJ, Gonzalgo ML, Mangold LO, Hymphreys E, Walsh PC, Partin AW (2008) Prognostic significance of Gleason score discrepancies between needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 53:767–776

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Ganz PA, Barry JM, Burke W, Col NF, Corso PS, Dodson E, Hammond ME, Kogan BA, Lynch CF, Newcomer L, Seifter EJ, Tooze JA, Viswanath K, Wessells H (2012) National institutes of health state-of-the-science conference: role of active surveillance in the management of men with localized prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med 156:591–595

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Shapiro RH, Johnstone PA (2012) Risk of Gleason grade inaccuracies in prostate cancer patients eligible for active surveillance. Urology 80:661–666

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Kristiansen G, Stöckle M, Albers P, Schmidberger H, Martus P, Wellek S, Härter M, Bussar-Maatz R, Wiegel T (2013) The importance of pathology in the German cancer study PREFERE. Pathologe 34:449–462

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Carter HB, Partin AW, Walsh PC, Trock BJ, Veltri RW, Nelson WG, Coffey DS, Singer EA, Epstein JI (2012) Gleason score 6 adenocarcinoma: should it be labeled as cancer? J Clin Oncol 35:4294–4296. doi:10.1200/JCO.2012.44.0586 Epub 2012 Oct 1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Hernandez DJ, Nielsen ME, Han M, Trock BJ, Partin AW, Walsh PC, Epstein JI (2008) Natural history of pathologically organ-confined (pT2) Gleason score 6 or less, prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Urology 72:172–176

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Han M, Partin AW, Zahurak M, Piantalosi S, Epstein JL, Walsh PC (2003) Biochemical (prostate specific antigen) recurrence probability following radical prostatectomy for clinical localized prostate cancer. J Urol 169:517–523

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Pierorazio PM, Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI (2013) Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int 111:753–760

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Isbarn H, Karakiewicz PI, Ahyai SA, Chun FK, Jeldres C, Haese A, Heinzer H, Zacharias M, Heuer R, Eichelberg C, Steuber T, Budäus L, Köllermann J, Salomon G, Schlomm T, Perrotte P, Fisch M, Huland H, Graefen M (2010) Differences in histopathological and biochemical outcomes in patients with low Gleason score prostate cancer. BJU Int 105:818–823

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Garmo H, et al. (2014) Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 370:932–940

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Isbarn H, Huland H, Graefen M (2013) Results of radical prostatectomy in newly diagnosed prostate cancer – long term survival rates in locally advanced and high risk cancers. Dtsch Ärztebl Int 110:497–503

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Van der Kwast T, Bubendorf L, Mazerolles C, Raspollini MR, Van Leenders GJ, Pihl CG, Kujala P (2013) Guidelines on processing and reporting of prostate biopsies: the 2013 update of the pathology committee of the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer (ERSPC). Virchows Arch 463:367–377. doi:10.1007/s00428-013-1466-5 Epub 2013 Aug 6

  49. Andreoiu M, Cheng L (2010) Multifocal prostate cancer: biologic, prognostic, and therapeutic implications. Hum Pathol 41:781–793

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Montironi R, Hammond EH, Lin DW, Gore JL, Srigley JR, Samaratunga H, Evevad L, Rubin MA, Nacey J, Klotz L, Sandler H, Zietman AL, Holden S, Humphrey PA, Evans AJ, Delahunt B, McKenney JK, Berney D, Wheeler TM, Chinnaiyan A, True L, Knudsen B, Epstein JI, Amin MB (2014) Consensus statement with recommendations on active surveillance inclusion criteria and definition of progression in men with localized prostate cancer: the critical role of the pathologist. Virchows Arch 465:623–628

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Amin M, Lin DW, Core L, et al. (2014) The critical role of the pathologist in determining eligibility for active surveillance as a management option in patients with prostate cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med 138:1387–1405

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Chun FK, Steuber T, Erbersdobler A, Currlin E, Walz J, Schlomm T, Haese A, Heinzer H, McCormack M, Huland H, Graefen M, Karakiewicz PI (2006) Development and internal validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of prostate cancer Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology. Eur Urol 49:820–826

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Ward JF, Slezak JM, Blute ML, Bergstralh EJ, Zincke H (2005) Radical prostatectomy for clinically advanced (cT3) prostate cancer since the advent of prostate-specific antigen testing: 15-year outcome. BJU Int 95:751–756

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Pierorazio PM, Guzzo TJ, Han M, Bivalacqua TJ, Epstein JI, Schaeffer EM, Schoenberg M, Walsh PC, Partin AW (2010) Long-term survival after radical prostatectomy for men with high Gleason sum in pathologic specimen. Urology 76:715–721

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank U. Oehler M.D. for coworking in diagnostic analyses.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pathology, Hegau-Bodensee Hospital of Singen, PO Box 720, 78207, Singen, Germany

    Burkhard Helpap & Daniel Ringli

  2. Department of Urology, Hegau-Bodensee Hospital of Singen, Singen, Germany

    Jens Tonhauser & Hans-Helge Seifert

  3. Department of Urology and Urologic Oncology, Loretto Hospital, Freiburg, Germany

    Immanuel Poser & Jürgen Breul

  4. Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany

    Heidrun Gevensleben

Authors
  1. Burkhard Helpap
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel Ringli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jens Tonhauser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Immanuel Poser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jürgen Breul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Heidrun Gevensleben
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Hans-Helge Seifert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Burkhard Helpap.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Helpap, B., Ringli, D., Tonhauser, J. et al. The Significance of Accurate Determination of Gleason Score for Therapeutic Options and Prognosis of Prostate Cancer. Pathol. Oncol. Res. 22, 349–356 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12253-015-0013-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12253-015-0013-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation