Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Grading prostate cancer

D G Bostwick1

  • 1Department of Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905.

American Journal of Clinical Pathology
|October 1, 1994
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Histologic tumor grade is crucial for prostate cancer prognosis. The Gleason grading system, while standard, has limitations in differentiating intermediate-grade tumors and can be affected by biopsy inaccuracies.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

High grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia with squamous differentiation.

Journal of clinical pathology·2006
Same author

Basal cell hyperplasia and basal cell carcinoma of the prostate: a comprehensive review and discussion of a case with c-erbB-2 expression.

Journal of clinical pathology·2005
Same author

Classification and grading of the non-invasive urothelial neoplasms: recent advances and controversies.

Journal of clinical pathology·2003
Same author

Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia.

Current urology reports·2002
Same author

Comparison of renal ablation with cryotherapy, dry radiofrequency, and saline augmented radiofrequency in a porcine model.

Journal of the American College of Surgeons·2001
Same author

Molecular genetic evidence for different clonal origin of components of human renal angiomyolipomas.

The American journal of surgical pathology·2001
Same journal

Invasive urothelial carcinoma in association with surface low-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma: clinical and pathologic insights from a rare entity.

American journal of clinical pathology·2026
Same journal

CEACAM1 expression by immunohistochemistry in B-cell lymphomas and plasma cell myeloma.

American journal of clinical pathology·2026
Same journal

Comprehensive multicriteria life cycle assessment of biopsy processing in a surgical pathology department.

American journal of clinical pathology·2026
Same journal

Prognostic significance of Myb protein and its downstream target genes in lacrimal gland adenoid cystic carcinoma.

American journal of clinical pathology·2026
Same journal

Mismatch repair protein "nonclassic expression loss" pattern in colorectal cancer: an important staining pattern that is not well understood.

American journal of clinical pathology·2026
Same journal

Musculoskeletal pain in medical laboratory personnel: a cross-sectional study.

American journal of clinical pathology·2026
See all related articles

Area of Science:

  • Oncology
  • Pathology

Background:

  • Histologic tumor grade is a critical prognostic factor in prostate cancer.
  • Current grading systems effectively distinguish well-differentiated from poorly differentiated cancers but struggle with intermediate grades.
  • The Gleason system is the standard but has limitations in precision and can be subject to variability.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To review the role and limitations of histologic tumor grading in prostate cancer.
  • To discuss modifications and challenges associated with the Gleason grading system.
  • To highlight the impact of biopsy and treatment on grade accuracy.

Main Methods:

  • Review of existing literature on prostate cancer grading systems.
  • Analysis of proposed modifications to the Gleason system.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Examination of biopsy under- and overestimation rates.
  • Discussion of grade changes post-treatment.

    • Main Results:

    • The Gleason system, while reproducible, exhibits interobserver variability.
    • Biopsies underestimate tumor grade in 33-45% of cases and overestimate in 4-32%.
    • Tumor heterogeneity and sampling errors contribute to grading inaccuracies.
    • Grade upgrading can occur after radiation or androgen-deprivation therapy.

    Conclusions:

    • Histologic tumor grade is a significant predictor of prostate cancer patient outcomes.
    • Addressing grading limitations and improving accuracy is essential for precise prognostication.
    • Combining grade with other prognostic variables can enhance outcome prediction.