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.

  • Letter to the Editor
  • Published:

Reply to ‘Comment on “Validation of a contemporary prostate cancer grading system using prostate cancer death as outcome”’

British Journal of Cancer volume 116, page e4 (2017)Cite this article

Subjects

Sir,

I thank Dell’oglio et al for their comments and interest in our paper (Berney et al, 2016), and their generally supportive comments. The authors conclude that the new grading system is merely a ‘user-friendly instrument’, however, it includes a number of pattern refinements based on previous work outlined fully in our article (Berney et al, 2016), including the fact that all cribriform glands and glomeruloid glands should be assigned a Gleason pattern 4 regardless of morphology, and the grading of mucinous carcinoma of the prostate should be based on its underlying growth pattern rather than grading them all as pattern (Epstein et al, 2016).

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

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

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

References

  • Berney DM, Algaba F, Camparo P, Comperat E, Griffiths D, Kristiansen G, Lopez-Beltran A, Montironi R, Varma M, Egevad L (2013) The reasons behind variation in Gleason grading of prostatic biopsies: areas of agreement and misconception among 266 European pathologists. Histopathology 64 (3): 405–411.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berney DM, Beltran L, Fisher G, North BV, Greenberg D, Møller H, Soosay G, Scardino P, Cuzick J on behalf of the transatlantic prostate group (2016) Validation of a contemporary prostate cancer grading system using prostate cancer death as outcome. Br J Cancer 114: 1078–1083.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Dong F, Yang P, Wang C, Wu S, Xiao Y, McDougal WS, Young RH, Wu CL (2013) Architectural heterogeneity and cribriform pattern predict adverse clinical outcome for Gleason grade 4 prostatic adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 37 (12): 1855–1861.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein JI (2010) An update of the Gleason grading system. J Urol 183 (2): 433–440.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA, Grading C (2016) The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol 40 (2): 244–252.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kir G, Sarbay BC, Gumus E, Topal CS (2014) The association of the cribriform pattern with outcome for prostatic adenocarcinomas. Pathol Res Pract 210 (10): 640–644.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kweldam CF, Wildhagen MF, Steyerberg EW, Bangma CH, van der Kwast TH, van Leenders GJ (2014) Cribriform growth is highly predictive for postoperative metastasis and disease-specific death in Gleason score 7 prostate cancer. Mod Pathol 28 (3): 457–464.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Loeb S, Folkvaljon Y, Robinson D, Lissbrant IF, Egevad L, Stattin P (2016) Evaluation of the 2015 Gleason grade groups in a nationwide population-based cohort. Eur Urol 69 (6): 1135–1141.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Molecular Oncology, Barts Cancer Institute Queen Mary University of London, London, UK

    Daniel M Berney

Authors
  1. Daniel M Berney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

on behalf of the Transatlantic Prostate Group

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel M Berney.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

This work is published under the BJC's standard license to publish agreement. After 12 months the license terms will change to a Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 Unported License.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Berney, D., on behalf of the Transatlantic Prostate Group. Reply to ‘Comment on “Validation of a contemporary prostate cancer grading system using prostate cancer death as outcome”’. Br J Cancer 116, e4 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2016.347

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2016.347

Search

Advanced search

Quick links