Prostate cancer grading: a decade after the 2005 modified system

Abstract

This review article will cover the evolution of grading of prostate cancer from the original Gleason system in the 1960-1970s to a more patient-centric grading system proposed in 2013 from a group at Johns Hopkins Hospital, validated in 2014 by a large multi-institutional study, and subsequently accepted by the World Health Organization (WHO), College of American Pathology (CAP), and the AJCC TNM system. Covered topics include: (1) historical background; (2) 2005 and 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology Grading Conferences; (3) Description of Gleason patterns; (4) new approaches to display Gleason grades; (5) grading variants and variations of acinar adenocarcinoma; (6) reporting rules for Gleason grading reporting secondary patterns of higher grade when present to a limited extent; (7) reporting secondary patterns of lower grade when present to a limited extent; (8) reporting percentage pattern 4; (9) general applications of the Gleason grading system; (10) needle biopsy with different cores showing different grades; (11) radical prostatectomy specimens with separate tumor nodules; and (12) a new grading system for prostate cancer.

NPS - 2143 (hydrochloride) inhibits melanoma cancer cell proliferation and induces autophagy and apoptosis

“…Melanoma is a common skin cancer caused by hyperproliferation of abnormal melanocytes. It typically occurs in the skin, but, although rarely, also in the mouth, intestines, brain or eyes [1][2][3]. It is extremely aggressivet and accounts for a large proportion of death among skin tumors.…”

“…It is extremely aggressivet and accounts for a large proportion of death among skin tumors. They are most commonly found on the legs in women, and on the back in men [4]. The incidence of melanoma varies with ethnic group and geography [5].…”

Assessment of the Utility of Gene Positioning Biomarkers in the Stratification of Prostate Cancers

“…(4/5) of Gleason grade 4 and 5 cancer in which SP100 repositioned and TGFB3 was more internally 338 positioned in 66.7% (2/3) of the Gleason grade 4 and 5 cancers in which TGFB3 was repositioned, 339 compared to the PND (Table 4). The similarity between Gleason grade and Gleason score positioning 340 patterns are not surprising given that Gleason score is the sum of the two most prominent Gleason 341 grades (Epstein et al, 2005;Epstein, 2018). An important caveat to be noted is that while the 342 subgrouping of the cancers was based on the most predominant Gleason grade of the tissue, it is not 343 necessarily the predominant Gleason grade of the nuclei analysis from each specimen.…”

Prostate cancer screening: And the pendulum swings

“…Today, there is good evidence to suggest that screening and treatment can benefit some, and there is increased understanding of prostate cancer pathology. 11 The work of Helgstrand and colleagues is now part of that evidence. Risk stratification has improved as the new Gleason grading system has moved some elements that were considered Gleason grade 3 into grade 4.…”

“…Today, there is good evidence to suggest that screening and treatment can benefit some, and there is increased understanding of prostate cancer pathology . The work of Helgstrand and colleagues is now part of that evidence.…”