Prognostic significance of tertiary Gleason pattern in the contemporary era of Gleason grade grouping: A narrative review.

Since the Gleason score was developed in 1966 as a histological classification for prostate cancer, it has been widely used in clinical practice and has evolved over time. The concept of a "tertiary Gleason pattern" (also known as a minor Gleason pattern) was first proposed in 2000, and has been used in clinical practice since the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology conference. The prognostic significance of a tertiary Gleason pattern has been widely validated in various settings of prostate cancer, whereas its definition has yet to be fully established. Currently, a provisional definition of tertiary Gleason pattern is "<5% Gleason pattern 4 or 5 in radical prostatectomy specimens." In contrast, "Gleason grade grouping" was proposed in 2013 and came into use in clinical practice in 2016 according to the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology conference. Although the prognostic significance of Gleason grade grouping has already been widely confirmed, it does not incorporate the concept of tertiary Gleason pattern. Recently, the 2019 International Society of Urological Pathology conference discussed how to handle tertiary Gleason pattern in the current Gleason scoring system, but no consensus was reached on the issue. This review summarizes the evidence on the prognostic significance of tertiary Gleason pattern and discusses how to deal with it in the context of the contemporary Gleason grade grouping. It also refers to reporting of the percentage of Gleason patterns 4 and 5, as well as quantitative Gleason score models incorporating tertiary Gleason pattern. © 2021 The Japanese Urological Association.

Citation

Satoru Taguchi, Teppei Morikawa, Junji Shibahara, Hiroshi Fukuhara. Prognostic significance of tertiary Gleason pattern in the contemporary era of Gleason grade grouping: A narrative review. International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association. 2021 Jun;28(6):614-621

Mesh Tags

PMID: 33580599

search → result