Gleason score 3+3=6 prostatic adenocarcinoma is not benign and the current debate is unhelpful to clinicians and patients.

Prostate adenocarcinoma is a common malignancy associated with a significant morbidity and mortality. In both prostate biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens Gleason scoring informs both treatment and outcome prediction. The current convention is that in needle biopsies, Gleason patterns 3, 4 and 5 are considered to be malignant. Despite this there is debate as to whether or not Gleason score (GS) 3+3=6 should be diagnosed as cancer due to potential over-treatment and the psychological impact on patients. It is apparent that GS 3+3=6 is indolent disease with a low risk of metastasis. However, it does have the histological features of malignancy and is capable of infiltrating the prostate gland, extraprostatic extension, and metastatic spread. Furthermore GS 3+3=6 carcinoma has immunohistochemical and molecular genetic features similar to those of higher grade prostatic carcinoma. If GS 3+3=6 tumour is considered benign, the question arises should a benign label be given to the Gleason pattern 3 component of tumour that includes Gleason patterns of higher grade? This would seem a logical step as GS 3+3=6 cancers and the pattern 3 component in cancers with multiple patterns are morphologically identical. If pattern 3 is considered to be benign, then Gleason scoring would be limited to 4+4=8, 4+5=9, 5+4=9 and 5+5=10 which is clearly inappropriate. The correct strategy to address potential over-treatment of patients with low-grade cancer is clinician and patient education, not the recalibration of Gleason grading to reclassify malignant tumours as benign. Copyright © 2023 Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia. All rights reserved.

Citation

Hemamali Samaratunga, Lars Egevad, John Yaxley, Joanna Perry-Keene, Ian Le Fevre, James Kench, Admire Matsika, David Bostwick, Kenneth Iczkowski, Brett Delahunt. Gleason score 3+3=6 prostatic adenocarcinoma is not benign and the current debate is unhelpful to clinicians and patients. Pathology. 2024 Feb;56(1):33-38

Mesh Tags

PMID: 38071161

search → result