FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3106455412> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3106455412 endingPage "168" @default.
• W3106455412 startingPage "165" @default.
• W3106455412 abstract "In November 2014, the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) convened a consensus meeting in Chicago, Illinois, USA to consider grading criteria for prostatic adenocarcinoma [1]. The primary purpose and main outcome of this meeting was a recommendation that, not only should the Gleason score of prostate cancer be reported, but that grading should also incorporate a five-tier grade based on a grouping of Gleason scores. The outcome of the conference has resulted in widespread confusion as to the grading nomenclature. This has weighed heavily on the prostate cancer literature to the extent that the time has now come to question the scientific value of the score grouping. The Chicago conference was held as a stand-alone 1-day meeting and was rushed to enable a consensus decision to be achieved to inform the editorial meeting of the WHO Classification of Tumours of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs in March 2015. Unfortunately, this consensus was never generated. At the WHO meeting, it was agreed that the WHO Bluebook should not endorse any of the proposed names for the grading scheme and the Bluebook instead adopted the descriptive and provisional term ‘grade groups’ [2]. An important issue is that while the term ‘grade group’ is catchy, it is factually incorrect as the system is not a grouping of Gleason grades, but a grouping of Gleason scores. A further major problem is that ‘grade groups’ are usually abbreviated to GG which has for decades been the acronym for Gleason grade, i.e. Gleason pattern. The issue has been compounded by the plethora of terms and abbreviations that have flooded the literature, with the grading system being referred to as: GG (grade group) [3]; GrG (grade group) [4]; PGG (prognostic grade group [5]; prostate cancer grade group [6]); GGG (Gleason grade group) [7]; ISUP grade [8]; WHO grade group [9]; ISUP grade group [10]; ISUP score [11]; and others. The problems resulting from the use of 'GG' as an acronym are not confined to the confusion as to whether it refers to ‘grade group’ or Gleason grade (i.e. Gleason pattern) as it is also unclear what is meant by 'grade' in this context. Does this refer to Gleason score, Gleason pattern or ‘grade group’? The pathology community has spent considerable energy on this dispute over the last 5 years [12-15]. It has been claimed that the main advantage of grouping of Gleason scores is that it assists clinicians in their discussions with patients over the likely behaviour and outcome of their prostate cancer. Understandably, a diagnosis of a grade 1 cancer may indeed sound more reassuring than that of a Gleason score 6 cancer. However, we question the cost–benefit ratio of the putative pedagogical advantage vs the confusion that has been caused by the plethora of new terms. It has been shown that there is indeed a need to explain the grading information to the patients as fewer than 50% in one study were found to have adequate understanding of the current nomenclature [16]. Yet, an increasing number of patients are well informed as they have access to a wealth of information on the Internet. Even if pathologists did cease to refer to the ISUP 2014 score grouping in the scientific literature, clinicians would still be free to translate a Gleason score 6 to grade 1, if that was more understandable in communications with the patient. There may have been a hope among some pathologists that ‘grade groups’ would replace Gleason grading entirely, but it is now apparent that this is a very unlikely scenario. Grading of prostate cancer is based on architectural patterns and pathologists need to specify these patterns to describe their findings. The wordy description of the morphology of the ISUP 2014 scheme in the consensus document is clearly insufficient for the discussion of individual architectural patterns [1]. It is clear from this that the so-called groupings and the definitive Gleason scores would always need to be reported simultaneously and thus continue to provide redundant information. Pathology reports tend to become increasingly extensive with an increasing amount of prognostic information. Even if synoptic reporting is used, all this information will risk obscuring the important diagnostic and prognostic elements. Any duplicate information should therefore be avoided. Prostate cancer grading has gone through uninterrupted change over the past two decades. Few other areas of tumour pathology have seen such a landslide of variation in reporting recommendations. Some of this development reflects an increased understanding of the biology of the disease, such as the notion that the presence of invasive cribriform cancer and intraductal carcinoma of the prostate conveys a poor prognosis [17, 18]. While cribriform cancer used to be included in either Gleason pattern 3 or 4, depending on the size and shape of the glands, the ISUP 2014 revision considers all cribriform cancer to be Gleason pattern 4, or even 5 if comedonecrosis is present [19]. The recognition of the prognostic impact of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate has led to the recommendation that this lesion be assigned a Gleason pattern 4 or 5 using the same criteria as for prostatic carcinoma with stromal invasion [18, 20]. Other decisions have been much less well founded and have led to confusion among general pathologists. The first major revision of the Gleason system resulted from the ISUP consensus conference in 2005 [21]. Here a re-definition of the significance of the components of the Gleason scores in needle biopsies was proposed. This has resulted in a significant Gleason inflation, which was confirmed in a registry study of almost 100 000 men with newly diagnosed cancer on needle biopsy in 1998–2011 [22]. A gradual shift towards the upgrading of tumours has been observed over a prolonged period, but this has been particularly evident after 2005. After an adjustment for stage shift, the proportion of tumours diagnosed as Gleason scores 7–10 increased from 59% to 72% when cancers reported before and after 2005 were compared. It has also been shown that, following the publication of the 2005 ISUP revision of the Gleason classification, the grading of general pathologists has become more aggressive than that of uropathology experts [23]. This has had a negative impact on the management of prostate cancer, with the perception that the Gleason score has become fluid rather than finite. This is unfortunate as the development of well-established reporting systems must be based on strong scientific evidence and a high level of consensus in the uropathology community. The correlation between Gleason score in needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens has been claimed to be improved after the ISUP 2005 revision of the Gleason grading system [24]. This conclusion was supported by an often-cited early report [25]; however, that particular study did not take into account the differences in grade distribution when comparing grading undertaken before and after 2005. If the number of grade categories that are actually used is reduced by new recommendations, there will be a spurious improvement of prediction accuracy of prostatectomy grade. In a later registry study of more than 15 000 men, it was found that, when grade distribution and other confounders were taken into account, there was actually a decreased grade concordance after 2005 [26]. When the scores were grouped according to ISUP 2014 the concordance fell even further, suggesting that even the ISUP 2014 revision may have done more harm than good in this respect. The percentage of Gleason pattern 4/5 present in biopsies was introduced as a prognostic marker by Stamey et al. two decades ago [27]. Despite validation of the prognostic value and assessment of the reproducibility of this marker [28, 29], assessment of percentage of Gleason pattern 4/5 present in tumours did not gain widespread traction in clinical practice. More recently the reporting of percentage of pattern 4/5 present in cancers has become more prevalent [8]. An explanation for this increasing interest may be that the Gleason inflation that was fueled by the ISUP 2005 consensus recommendations has pushed a considerable number of cancers from Gleason score 6 to 7 [21]. There is now a need for the identification of additional descriptors that will permit the triaging of Gleason score 7 tumours into categories that will provide guidance in the management of patients. This incremental reporting of percentage of Gleason pattern 4 further reduces interest in the reporting of broad categories of Gleason patterns 3 vs 4 involvement as grades 2, 3 and 4 (1–49%, 50–95% and >95% Gleason pattern 4), especially since pure Gleason score 8 (4 + 4) in radical prostatectomy specimens is apparently rare, contributing to only 0.6–3.9% cases in tumour series [30, 31]. Furthermore, several studies have demonstrated overlapping outcome curves for ISUP grades 3 and 4 [30, 32-34]. This makes it even more questionable whether it is worth assigning a separate grade category to the unusual pure Gleason score 4 + 4 = 8 cancers, while other steps in the continuous scale of percentages of Gleason pattern 4 are ignored. In some active surveillance programmes, 10% is a limit for allowing active surveillance [35]. Stamey et al. emphasized that, if biopsies contained at least 20% Gleason pattern 4/5, the prostatectomy specimen also contained at least 20% of these patterns in 90% of men, indicating that this threshold may be of clinical interest [27]. None of these thresholds is accounted for by ‘grade groups’ 2–4. Yet another problem with the suggested grouping of grades is the unsettled definition of ISUP grade 4 [36]. At the ISUP consensus conference in 2014, this grade category was defined as Gleason score 8 (4 + 4, 3 + 5 and 5 + 3), while Pierorazio et al. [5] defined prognostic grade group 4 as Gleason score 8 based on investigations of the outcome of Gleason score 4 + 4 cancer alone. Thus, ISUP 2014 grading departs from the Pierorazio et al. grouping, both in the grouping of scores and in the interpretation of morphology. Several studies have indicated a possible heterogeneity in Gleason score 8 tumours. Some have found a higher prostate cancer-specific mortality in Gleason score 5 + 3 than in 3 + 5 and 4 + 4 [37] or in 3 + 5 and 5 + 3 than in 4 + 4 [38], while others have found a lower biochemical [31] or clinical recurrence rate [39] in cancers of Gleason score 3 + 5 than in other Gleason score 8 tumours. A further issue is that ‘grade groups’ lack the granularity of Gleason scoring. The clearest example of this relates to ‘grade group’ 4. Here it is unknown if this refers to Gleason score 3 + 5=8, 4 + 4=8 or 5 + 3 = 8. There is increasing evidence that the percentage of pattern 4 tumour present has an impact on outcome and, as such, it seems bizarre that 'grade group' 4 tumours have either 100% pattern 4 or 0% pattern 4 and yet are classified as an identical grade. It has also been suggested that Gleason score 5 + 4 cancers may have a higher risk of lymph node involvement and a worse outcome after radical prostatectomy than Gleason score 4 + 5 tumours [40]. In addition, we may at present be unaware of details that now escape us such as the distinction of very low-grade patterns detected by MRI-targeted biopsies from the anterior prostate, as all low-grade tumours are currently lumped together on needle biopsy. All of these examples illustrate that collapsing the Gleason grading system to five groups simplifies the complexity of prostate cancer morphology, with resulting loss of detail of information. Few revisions of a histopathological grading system have contributed as little as the ISUP grading recommendations of 2014. The notion that this would be a novel grading system is a misconception as it is a mere translation of the Gleason scores into an alternative terminology at the expense of loss of information. It is time to realize that the introduction of this grouping was a mistake and reclaim the universally understood Gleason nomenclature for grading of prostate cancer. The future development of prostate cancer prognostication should rather be based on the integration of novel knowledge of the role of genetics of prostate carcinogenesis [41, 42] and classical morphology, possibly assisted by artificial intelligence [20, 43]. None declared." @default.
• W3106455412 created "2020-11-23" @default.
• W3106455412 creator A5010401322 @default.
• W3106455412 creator A5014036079 @default.
• W3106455412 creator A5014573705 @default.
• W3106455412 creator A5021421424 @default.
• W3106455412 creator A5022649819 @default.
• W3106455412 creator A5024616322 @default.
• W3106455412 creator A5025924020 @default.
• W3106455412 creator A5030533194 @default.
• W3106455412 creator A5034433475 @default.
• W3106455412 creator A5034554281 @default.
• W3106455412 creator A5036500538 @default.
• W3106455412 creator A5048482314 @default.
• W3106455412 creator A5051094983 @default.
• W3106455412 creator A5063459351 @default.
• W3106455412 creator A5069535975 @default.
• W3106455412 creator A5080563805 @default.
• W3106455412 creator A5086908096 @default.
• W3106455412 date "2020-11-27" @default.
• W3106455412 modified "2023-10-11" @default.
• W3106455412 title "Prostate cancer grading, time to go back to the future" @default.
• W3106455412 cites W1608188497 @default.
• W3106455412 cites W1711647572 @default.
• W3106455412 cites W1806046400 @default.
• W3106455412 cites W1887093532 @default.
• W3106455412 cites W1961674496 @default.
• W3106455412 cites W1968629884 @default.
• W3106455412 cites W2005802969 @default.
• W3106455412 cites W2083043726 @default.
• W3106455412 cites W2087349778 @default.
• W3106455412 cites W2115579705 @default.
• W3106455412 cites W2127532445 @default.
• W3106455412 cites W2127594648 @default.
• W3106455412 cites W2140604555 @default.
• W3106455412 cites W2165544861 @default.
• W3106455412 cites W2220127397 @default.
• W3106455412 cites W2286200280 @default.
• W3106455412 cites W2291213698 @default.
• W3106455412 cites W2319365577 @default.
• W3106455412 cites W2323849234 @default.
• W3106455412 cites W2330724923 @default.
• W3106455412 cites W2337710544 @default.
• W3106455412 cites W2340422569 @default.
• W3106455412 cites W2341036690 @default.
• W3106455412 cites W2417958681 @default.
• W3106455412 cites W2582668649 @default.
• W3106455412 cites W2598182493 @default.
• W3106455412 cites W2603199449 @default.
• W3106455412 cites W2767883250 @default.
• W3106455412 cites W2783358782 @default.
• W3106455412 cites W2901653975 @default.
• W3106455412 cites W2911952698 @default.
• W3106455412 cites W2922465989 @default.
• W3106455412 cites W2943784547 @default.
• W3106455412 cites W2992216530 @default.
• W3106455412 cites W2994779816 @default.
• W3106455412 cites W3022420158 @default.
• W3106455412 cites W3023956276 @default.
• W3106455412 cites W3025239515 @default.
• W3106455412 cites W4214636039 @default.
• W3106455412 cites W2789493149 @default.
• W3106455412 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15298" @default.
• W3106455412 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/7898629" @default.
• W3106455412 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33206437" @default.
• W3106455412 hasPublicationYear "2020" @default.
• W3106455412 type Work @default.
• W3106455412 sameAs 3106455412 @default.
• W3106455412 citedByCount "5" @default.
• W3106455412 countsByYear W31064554122021 @default.
• W3106455412 countsByYear W31064554122022 @default.
• W3106455412 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3106455412 hasAuthorship W3106455412A5010401322 @default.
• W3106455412 hasAuthorship W3106455412A5014036079 @default.
• W3106455412 hasAuthorship W3106455412A5014573705 @default.
• W3106455412 hasAuthorship W3106455412A5021421424 @default.
• W3106455412 hasAuthorship W3106455412A5022649819 @default.
• W3106455412 hasAuthorship W3106455412A5024616322 @default.
• W3106455412 hasAuthorship W3106455412A5025924020 @default.
• W3106455412 hasAuthorship W3106455412A5030533194 @default.
• W3106455412 hasAuthorship W3106455412A5034433475 @default.
• W3106455412 hasAuthorship W3106455412A5034554281 @default.
• W3106455412 hasAuthorship W3106455412A5036500538 @default.
• W3106455412 hasAuthorship W3106455412A5048482314 @default.
• W3106455412 hasAuthorship W3106455412A5051094983 @default.
• W3106455412 hasAuthorship W3106455412A5063459351 @default.
• W3106455412 hasAuthorship W3106455412A5069535975 @default.
• W3106455412 hasAuthorship W3106455412A5080563805 @default.
• W3106455412 hasAuthorship W3106455412A5086908096 @default.
• W3106455412 hasBestOaLocation W31064554121 @default.
• W3106455412 hasConcept C121608353 @default.
• W3106455412 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W3106455412 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W3106455412 hasConcept C147176958 @default.
• W3106455412 hasConcept C19527891 @default.
• W3106455412 hasConcept C2776235491 @default.
• W3106455412 hasConcept C2777286243 @default.
• W3106455412 hasConcept C2780192828 @default.

• next