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.[sup.9]
