Abstract
The Gleason grading system, proposed by Dr. Donald F. Gleason in 1966, is one of the most important prognostic factors in men with prostate cancer (PCa). At consensus conferences held in 2005 and 2014, organized by the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP), the system was modified to reflect the current diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. In particular, in the 2014 Conference, it was recognized that there were weaknesses with the original and the 2005 ISUP modified Gleason systems. Based on the results of a research conducted by Prof. JI Epstein and his group, a new grading system was proposed by the ISUP in order to address some of such deficiencies: i.e., the five distinct Grade Groups (GGs). Since 2014, results of studies have been published by different groups and societies, including the Genitourinary Pathology Society (GUPS), giving additional support to the prognostic role of the architectural Gleason patterns and, in particular, of the GGs. A revised GG system, taking into account the percentage of Gleason pattern (GP) 4, cribriform and intraductal carcinoma, tertiary GP 5, and reactive stroma grade, has shown to have some advantages, however not ready for adoption in the current practice. The aim of this contribution was to review the major updates and recommendations regarding the GPs and GSs, as well as the GGs, trying to give an answer to the following questions: "How has the grade group system been used in the routine?" and "will the Gleason scoring system be replace by the grade groups?" We also discussed the potential implementation in the future of molecular pathology and artificial intelligence in grading to further define risk groups in patients with PCa.