Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • News & Views
  • Published:

Prostate cancer

A simplified prostate cancer grading system

Nature Reviews Urology volume 12, pages 601–602 (2015)Cite this article

Subjects

Evolving over time, the Gleason scoring system has remained a crucial tool for prognosis and treatment decision making in prostate cancer. A recent study proposes a modification to the current Gleason system that should more accurately risk stratify patients and enable clinicians to make more appropriate treatment decisions.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Partin, A. W. et al. Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer: a multi-institutional update. JAMA 227, 1445–1451 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. D'Amico, A. W. et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 280, 969–974 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kim, E. H. and Andriole, G. L. Prostate-specific antigen-based screening: controversy and guidelines. BMC Med. 13, 61 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Epstein, J. I. et al. A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason score. Eur. Urol. 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.046.

  5. Chan, T. Y., Partin, A. W., Walsh, P. C. & Epstein, J. I. Prognostic significance of Gleason score 3+4 versus Gleason score 4+3 tumor at radical prostatectomy. Urology 56, 823–827 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Tsao, C. K. et al. Patients with biopsy Gleason 9 and 10 prostate cancer have significantly worse outcomes compared with Gleason 8 disease. J. Urol. 194, 91–97 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kazer, M. W. et al. Uncertainty and perception of danger among patients undergoing treatment for prostate cancer. BJU Int. 111, E84–E91 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Donin, N. M., Laze, J., Zhou, M., Ren, Q. & Lepor, H. Gleason 6 prostate tumors diagnosed in the PSA era do not demonstrate the capacity for metastatic spread at the time of radical prostatectomy. Urology 82, 148–153 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Goh, A. C. et al. Perception of cancer and inconsistency in medical information are associated with decisional conflict: a pilot study of men with prostate cancer who undergo active surveillance. BJU Int. 110, E50–E56 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Epstein, J. I. et al. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 29, 1228–1242 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Urologic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, 4960 Children's Place, Saint Louis, 63110, MO, USA

    Eric H. Kim & Gerald L. Andriole

Authors
  1. Eric H. Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gerald L. Andriole
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gerald L. Andriole.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

G.L.A. declares that he is an investigator with Johnson and Johnson, Medivation, and Traxxsson, and acts as a consultant for Augmenix, Bayer, Genomic Health, and Myriad Genetics.

E.H.K. declares no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, E., Andriole, G. A simplified prostate cancer grading system. Nat Rev Urol 12, 601–602 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2015.212

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2015.212

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing