Gleason's work was validated by most of the preeminent urologic pathology groups, (6-10) and the Gleason system
became accepted as the preferred grading method for PCa.
Due to this diversity, the final grade as reported by the Gleason system
is based on the combination of the most dominant and second most dominant patterns observed.
There are some problems with the clinical application of the Gleason system
. Notification of the significant prognostic difference between prostate carcinomas with Gleason grade 3+4 and 4+3 revealed that treatment decisions using a single Gleason score misdirect the management of patients.
After examining the haematoxylin and eosin stained slides, the tumours were classified according to modified Gleason system
with ISUP recommendations.
The histopathological grading and scoring by Gleason system
was carried out in all cases of adenocarcinoma of prostate, criteria for the grading and scoring of needle biopsies of the prostate.
All patients with prostate cancer were scored according to Gleason system
(5,6) Moreover, the differences between the original Gleason system
and the 2005 ISUP Modified Gleason System
make it difficult to compare data sets assessing patient outcomes in prostate cancer over time.
The Gleason system
uses a score of two to 10 to analyze a tumor; a score between eight and 10 suggests an aggressive, fast-growing tumor that's probably spread beyond the prostate gland.
At McCaffrey's, a three-store New Jersey independent that has had the system for six years, managers use the Gleason system
for hourly store walk-throughs.
The most critical threshold in the Gleason system
is in the recognition of patterns 4 and 5.
There have been continued efforts in improving the Gleason system
for risk stratification.
We estimated tumour grade after the contemporary criteria of 2005 ISUP modified Gleason system