Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The Gleason grading system of prostatic adenocarcinoma does not account for the existence of a tertiary (third most prevalent) pattern, and there are no studies concerning the latter's prognostic influence. The authors analyzed 114 radical prostatectomies with small tertiary components, which mostly occupied less than 5% of whole tumors. These specimens were compared with a prostatectomy database comprised of 2,276 cases without a tertiary component. The pathologic stages of "typical" Gleason score 5 to 6 tumors (Gleason scores 2 + 3 = 5, 3 + 2 = 5, 3 + 3 = 6), which contained tertiary patterns 4 or 5, were significantly higher than those of "typical" Gleason score 5 to 6 tumors without pattern 4 (p = 0.018) but lower than those of "typical" Gleason score 7 tumors (p = 0.021; Gleason scores, 3 + 4 = 7, 4 + 3 = 7). Typical Gleason score 7 tumors with a tertiary pattern 5 showed significantly worse pathologic stages than typical Gleason score 7 tumors (p = 0.008) without pattern 5 and were not different statistically from typical Gleason score 8 (Gleason score, 4 + 4 = 8) tumors. Both typical Gleason score 5 to 6 and 7 tumors with tertiary components revealed significantly higher progression rates than typical Gleason score 5 to 6 tumors (p <0.0001) and Gleason score 7 tumors (p = 0.003) without tertiary components, and progressed like typical Gleason score 7 and 8 tumors respectively. Tertiary high-grade components have an adverse impact on biologic behavior. The authors propose that the Gleason system for radical prostatectomy specimens be modified to take into account small volumes of patterns 4 and 5, which are important prognostically.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pan et al. (2000) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: