Comparative Histopathological Characterization of Prostate Cancer in Saudi Patients by Conventional and 2005 ISUP Modified Gleason Systems

  • Published : 2015.01.22


Background: The aim of this study was to compare the characterization of prostate cancer using the conventional and 2005 ISUP modified Gleason systems. Materials and Methods: The study employed samples from 40 prostate cancer patients with resection, biopsy and RP materials. The majority of cases (95%) comprised adenocarcinoma of the prostate with a modified combined Gleason score of 7 in 20 of the cases (50%). Results: Upgrading of Gleason scores to a score of 7 occurred in more than 45% of the cases. Conclusion: The study successfully showed that by the use of the 2005 ISUP modified Gleason system, score 6 cancers decreased from 25% to 17.5% of cases, whereas score 7 cancers increased from 45% to 50%.


  1. Allsbrook WC, Mangold Jr KA, Yang X, Epstein JI (1999). The Gleason grading system: an overview. J Urol Pathol, 10, 141-58.
  2. Bayder DE, Epstein JI (2009), Gleason grading system, modifications and additions to the original scheme. Turkish J Pathol, 25, 59-70.
  3. Brimo F, Montironi R, Egevad L, et al (2013). Contemporary grading for prostate cancer: implications for patient care. Eur Urol, 6, 892-901.
  4. de la Taille A, Antiphon P, Salomon L, et al (2003). Prospective evaluation of a 21-sample needle biopsy procedure designed to improve the prostate cancer detection rate. Urology, 61, 1181-6.
  5. Egevad L, Norlen BJ, Norberg M (2001). The value of multiple core biopsies for predicting the Gleason score of prostate cancer. BJU Int, 88, 716-21.
  6. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, et al (2005). The 2005 international society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol, 29, 1228-42.
  7. Epstein JI, Allsbrook Jr WC, Amin MB, Egevad LL (2005). ISUP Grading committee: 2005 international society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol, 29, 1228-42.
  8. Ferlay J, ShinHR, Bray F, et al (2010). Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer, 127, 2893-917.
  9. Fletcher CDM. (2007). Diagnostic Histopathology of Tumors, 3rd edition Philadelphia, Elsevier, 755.
  10. Garnick MB, Fair WR (1996). Prostate cancer: emerging concepts, Part II. Ann Intern Med, 125, 205-12.
  11. Goldstein A S, Huang J, Guo C, Garraway IP, Witte O N (2010) Identification of a cell of origin for human prostate cancer. Science, 329, 568-71.
  12. Gleason DF (1992) Histologic grading of prostate cancer: A perspective. Hum Pathol, 23, 273-9.
  13. Helpap B, Egevad L (2008) Correlation of modified gleason grading with pt stage of prostatic carcinoma after radical prostatectomy. Anal Quant Cytol Histol, 30, 1-7.
  14. Hugosson J, Carlsson S, Aus G, et al (2010). Mortality results from the Goteborg randomised population-based prostate-cancer screening trial. Lancet Oncol, 11, 725-32.
  15. Kiernan JA (2001). Histological and histochemical methods: theory and practice, London a hodder arnold publication.
  16. Kolawole AO (2011). Feasible cancer control strategies for nigeria: mini-review. Am J Tropical Med & Public Health, 1, 1-10.
  17. McPherson SJ, Hussain S, Balanathan P, et al (2010). Estrogen receptor-$\beta$ activated apoptosis in benign hyperplasia and cancer of the prostate is androgen independent and $TNF{\alpha}$ mediated. Proc Natl Acad Sci, 107, 3123-8.
  18. Orozco, R, O'Dowd G, Kunnel B, Miller MC, Veltri RW (1998). Observations on pathology trends in 62,537 prostate biopsies obtained from urology private practices in the United States. Urology, 51, 186-5.
  19. Ogawa O (2004). Risk Factors for prostate cancer. JMAJ, 47, 186-1.
  20. Par Kash D, Lal M, Hashmi AH, Mubarak M (2014). Utility of digital rectal examination, serum prostate specific antigen, and transrectal ultrasound in the detection of prostate cancer: a developing country perspective. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 3087-91.
  21. Park S, Bae J, Nam B-H, Yoo K-Y (2008). Aetiology of cancer in Asia. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 9, 371-80.
  22. Pourmand G, Salem S, Mehrsai A, et al (2007). The risk factors of prostate cancer: a multicentric case-control study in Iran. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 8, 422-8.
  23. Routh JC, Leibovich BC (2005). Adenocarcinoma of the prostate: epidemiological trends, screening, diagnosis, and surgical management of localized disease. Mayo Clin Proc, 80, 899-7.
  24. Svetec D, Thompson IM (1998). PSA screening-current controversy. Annal Oncol, 9, 1283-8.
  25. Timmerman R, Paulus R, Galvin J, et al (2010). Stereotactic body radiation therapy for inoperable early stage lung cancer. JAMA, 303, 1070-6.
  26. Varadhachary GR, Raber MN, Matamoros A, et al (2008). Carcinoma of unknown primary with a colon-cancer profile - changing paradigm and emerging definitions. Lancet Oncol, 9, 596-9.
  27. Verim L, Yildirim A, Basok EK, et al (2013). Impact of PSA and DRE on histologic findings at prostate biopsy in Turkish men over 75 years of age. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 6085-8.
  28. Visvader JE (2011). Cells of origin in cancer. Nature, 469, 314-22.
  29. Weinstein IB, Santella RM, Perera FP (1995). Molecular biology and epidemiology of cancer. in 'cancer prevention and control'. Eds Greenwald P, Kramer BS and Weed DL. Marcel-Dekker, New York, pp 83-110.
  30. Wu SL, Li NC, Xiao YX et al (2006). Natural history of benign prostate hyperplasia, Clin Med J, 119, 2085-9.
  31. Zhao FJ, Han BM, Yu SQ, Xia SJ (2009) Tumor formation of prostate cancer cells influenced by stromal cells from the transitional or peripheral zones of the normal prostate. Asian J Androl, 11, 176-82.

Cited by

  1. Biopsy undergrading in men with Gleason score 6 and fatal prostate cancer in the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Rotterdam vol.24, pp.4, 2017,