Pathological features, Gleason grading and prognostic grade grouping of prostatic carcinoma: analyses of 119 cases of prostate needle biopsy specimens

Yun-fan WANG,Qi MIAO,Jin-xia ZHANG,Shu-fang WANG,Miao-zi GONG
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1007-8096.2018.01.004
2018-01-01
Abstract:Objective To observe pathological changes in prostatic carcinoma needle biopsy samples and grading based on the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) modified Gleason grading system (2014) and a new prognostic grouping system.Methods 119 needle biopsy specimens of diagnosed prostatic cancer were collected.Information with respect to Gleason patterns,Gleason scores and a new 5-tier ISUP grading were made based on the refinements of the ISUP 2014 consensus conference on grading of prostate carcinoma.Results In the 119 needle core cases examined,73 (61.3%) cases had adenocarcinoma of Gleason 3 as the primary or secondary patterns,104 (87.4%) cases had adenocarcinoma of Gleason 4 as the primary or secondary patterns,and 21 (17.6%) cases had adenocarcinoma of Gleason 5 as the primary or secondary (worst) patterns.The new prognostic grade grouping system results showed twelve (10.1%) patients were classified as Grade Group 1,twenty-three (19.3%) Grade Group 2,thirty-seven (31.1%) Grade Group 3,twenty-seven (22.7%) Grade Group 4,and twenty (16.8%) Grade Group 5.Conclusion Gleason 4 is the most common pattern and often mixed with Gleason 3.Because of the important prognostic and therapeutic implications,pathologists must be aware of its importance of accurate recognition of Gleason patterns 4 and 5 on core biopsy.The new Grade Group classification of prostate cancer provides a simple system that addresses at least some of the deficiencies of the modified Gleason grading system and leads to improved prognostic value,and therefore it has been recommended using in conjunction with Gleason grading system.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?