Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Nuclear Grading Versus Gleason Grading in Small Samples Containing Prostate Cancer: A Tissue Microarray Study

  • Published:
Pathology & Oncology Research

Abstract

In this study we addressed the question whether nuclear grading in very small samples of prostate cancer would provide additional prognostic information as compared to Gleason grading. Therefore, a tissue microarray (TMA) was constructed comprising a total number of 3,261 prostate cancers. Blinded for all clinical and pathological data, the TMA spots (diameter 0.6 mm) containing cancer were graded with two systems: First, for nuclear features according to a modified Fuhrman grading system, and second, by using a simplified Gleason system. The results were compared with tumour stage, tumour grade and follow-up data. Although nuclear grading could easily be performed on the TMA spots, no correlation was found with tumour stage, grade or PSA recurrence after prostatectomy. However, Gleason grading, even when performed on the small TMA spots, provided significant prognostic information. Correlation with Gleason scores determined in the complete prostatectomy specimens showed moderate agreement in low-grade (score ≤ 6) or intermediate (score = 7) tumours, but poor agreement with high-grade (score ≥ 8) tumours. In conclusion, the Fuhrman grading of prostate cancer does not appear to be of any prognostic importance so the Gleason grading remains the system of choice, even in tumour specimens smaller than 1 mm.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

PSA:

prostate-specific antigen

TMA:

tissue microarray

H&E:

hematoxylin and eosin

References

  1. Gleason DF (1966) Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother Rep 50:125–128

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gleason DF, Mellinger GT (1974) Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol 111:58–64

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gleason DF (1992) Histologic grading of prostate cancer: a perspective. Hum Pathol 23:273–279

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Epstein JI, Pizov G, Walsh PC (1993) Correlation of pathologic findings with progression after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Cancer 71:3582–3593

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Oesterling JE, Brendler CB, Epstein JI et al (1987) Correlation of clinical stage, serum prostatic acid phosphatase and preoperative Gleason grade with final pathological stage in 275 patients with clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 138:92–98

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Di Silverio F, D’Eramo G, Buscarini M et al (1996) DNA ploidy, Gleason score, pathological stage and serum PSA levels as predictors of disease-free survival in C-D1 prostatic cancer patients submitted to radical retropubic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 30:316–321

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sogani PC, Israel A, Lieberman PH et al (1985) Gleason grading of prostate cancer: a predictor of survival. Urology 25:223–227

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bostwick DG, Foster CS (1999) Predictive factors in prostate cancer: current concepts from the 1999 College of American Pathologists Conference on Solid Tumor Prognostic Factors and the 1999 World Health Organization Second International Consultation on Prostate Cancer. Semin Urol Oncol 17:222–272

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Humphrey PA (2004) Gleason grading and prognostic factors in carcinoma of the prostate. Mod Pathol 17:292–306

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Epstein JI, Carmichael M, Partin AW et al (1993) Is tumor volume an independent predictor of progression following radical prostatectomy? A multivariate analysis of 185 clinical stage B adenocarcinomas of the prostate with 5 years of followup. J Urol 149:1478–1481

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Epstein JI, Carmichael MJ, Pizov G et al (1993) Influence of capsular penetration on progression following radical prostatectomy: a study of 196 cases with long-term followup. J Urol 150:135–141

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Egan AJ, Bostwick DG (1997) Prediction of extraprostatic extension of prostate cancer based on needle biopsy findings: perineural invasion lacks significance on multivariate analysis. Am J Surg Pathol 21:1496–1500

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sagalowsky AI, Milam H, Reveley LR (1982) Prediction of lymphatic metastases by Gleason histologic grading in prostatic cancer. J Urol 128:951–952

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gaeta JF, Asirwatham JE, Miller G et al (1980) Histologic grading of primary prostatic cancer: a new approach to an old problem. J Urol 123:689–693

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Böcking A, Kiehn J, Heinzel-Wach M (1982) Combined histologic grading of prostatic carcinoma. Cancer 50:288–294

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Zhou M, Hayasaka S, Taylor JM et al (2001) Lack of association of prostate carcinoma nuclear grading with prostate specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 166:2193–2197

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Khan MA, Walsh PC, Miller MC et al (2003) Quantitative alterations in nuclear structure predict prostate carcinoma distant metastasis and death in men with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Cancer 98:2583–2591

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Veltri RW, Miller MC, Isharwal S et al (2008) Prediction of prostate-specific antigen recurrence in men with long-term follow-up postprostatectomy using quantitative nuclear morphometry. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 17:102–110

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Fuhrman SA, Lasky LC, Limas C (1982) Prognostic significance of morphologic parameters in renal cell carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 6:655–663

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bubendorf L, Kononen J, Koivisto P et al (1999) Survey of gene amplifications during prostate cancer progression by high-throughout fluorescence in situ hybridization on tissue microarrays. Cancer Res 59:803–806

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Schlomm T, Kirstein P, Iwers L et al (2007) Clinical significance of epidermal growth factor receptor protein overexpression and gene copy number gains in prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res 13:6579–6584

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Schlomm T, Iwers L, Kirstein P et al (2008) Clinical significance of p53 alterations in surgically treated prostate cancers. Mod Pathol 21:1371–1378

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Erbersdobler A, Isbarn H, Steiner I et al (2009) Predictive value of prostate-specific antigen expression in prostate cancer: a tissue microarray study. Urology 74:1169–1173

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. DeMarzo AM, Nelson WG, Isaacs WB et al (2003) Pathological and molecular aspects of prostate cancer. Lancet 361:955–964

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Epstein JI (2004) Diagnosis and reporting of limited adenocarcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy. Mod Pathol 17:307–315

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Diamond DA, Berry SJ, Umbricht C et al (1982) Computerized image analysis of nuclear shape as a prognostic factor for prostatic cancer. Prostate 3:321–332

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Partin AW, Walsh AC, Pitcock RV et al (1982) A comparison of nuclear morphometry and Gleason grade as a predictor of prognosis in stage A2 prostate cancer: a critical analysis. J Urol 142:1254–1258

    Google Scholar 

  28. Robutti F, Pilato FP, Betta PG (1989) A new method of grading malignancy of prostate carcinoma using quantitative microscopic nuclear features. Pathol Res Pract 185:701–703

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Fujikawa K, Sasaki M, Arai Y et al (1997) Prognostic criteria in patients with prostate cancer: Gleason score versus volume-weighted mean nuclear volume. Clin Cancer Res 3:613–618

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr. Albrecht Stenzinger for reading the manuscript.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Andreas Erbersdobler

    Present address: Institute of Pathology, University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Pathology, Charité University Hospital, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany

    Daniel Wittschieber & Andreas Erbersdobler

  2. Institute of Pathology, University Medical Center, Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany

    Jens Köllermann & Guido Sauter

  3. Martini-Clinic, Prostate Cancer Center, University Medical Center, Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany

    Thorsten Schlomm

Authors
  1. Daniel Wittschieber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jens Köllermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thorsten Schlomm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Guido Sauter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andreas Erbersdobler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Wittschieber.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wittschieber, D., Köllermann, J., Schlomm, T. et al. Nuclear Grading Versus Gleason Grading in Small Samples Containing Prostate Cancer: A Tissue Microarray Study. Pathol. Oncol. Res. 16, 479–484 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12253-010-9270-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12253-010-9270-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation