Wang L, Lu B, He M, Wang Y, Wang Z, Lingbin D (2022) Prostate cancer incidence and mortality: global status and temporal trends in 89 countries from 2000 to 2019. Front Public Health 16(10):10–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.811044

Article  Google Scholar 

Sankarapillai J, Krishnan S, Ramamoorthy T, Sudarshan KL, Mathur P (2024) Descriptive epidemiology of prostate cancer in India, 2012–2019: insights from the National Cancer Registry Programme. Indian J Urol 40(3):167–173. https://doi.org/10.4103/iju.iju_27_24

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Mavingire N, Moore JC, Johnson JR, Dwead AM, Cropp CD, Mechref Y et al (2024) Revisiting HER2 in prostate cancer from an inclusive perspective: from biomarkers to omics. Cancers 16(19):3262. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16193262

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

Offerman A, Hohensteiner S, Kuempers C, Ribbat-Idel J, Schneider F, Becker F, et al (2017) Prognostic value of the New Prostate Cancer International society of Urological Pathology Grade Groups. Front Med 29(4): 1–7.https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2017.00157

Gasparrini S, Cimadamore A, Scarpelli M, Massari F, Doria A, Mazzucchelli R, et al (2019) Contemporary grading of prostate cancer : 2017 update for pathologists and clinicians. Asian J Androl 21(1): 19–23. https://doi.org/10.4103/aja.aja_24_17

Humphrey PA, Amin MB, Berney DM, Billis A, Cao D, Cheng L, et al (2016) Tumors of the prostate. In: WHO Classification of Tumours of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs. 4th edn. IARC , Lyon (France), pp 138–62

Gleason DF (1966) Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother Rep 50:125–8. PubMed

Salmo EN (2015) An audit of inter- observer variability in Gleason grading of prostate cancer biopsies : the experience of central pathology review in the North West of England. Integr Cancer Sci Therap2[2] : 1–3. https://doi.org/10.15761/ICST.1000123

Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA (2016) The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology [ISUP] consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma- definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol 40(2):244–252. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000530

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL, ISUP Grading Committee (2005) The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology [ISUP] consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 29:1228–1242. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.pas.0000173646.99337.b1

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Chen N, Zhou Q (2016) The evolving Gleason grading system. Chin J Cancer Res28[1]:58–64. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.1000-9604.2016.02.04

Wright JL, Salinas CA, Lin DW, Kolb S, Koopmeiners J, Feng Z, et al (2010) Differences in prostate cancer outcomes between cases with Gleason 4+3 and Gleason 3+4 tumors in a population based cohort. J Urol 182(2):2702–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.08.026

Danneman D, Drevin L, Robinson D, Stattin P, Edevad L (2015) Gleason inflation 1998–2011: a registry study of 97,168 men. BJU Int 115:248–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12671

Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Zareba P, Zhang J, Yilmaz A, Trpkov K (2009) The impact of the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology [ISUP] consensus on Gleason grading in contemporary practice. Histopathology 55:384–391. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2559.2009.03405.x

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Huang CC, Kong MX, Zhou M, Rosenkrantz AB, Taneja SS, Melamed J et al (2014) Gleason score 3 + 4=7 prostate cancer with minimal quantity of gleason pattern 4 on needle biopsy is associated with low-risk tumor in radical prostatectomy specimen. Am J Surg Pathol 38:1096–1101. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000235

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Helpap B, Egevad L (2008) Correlation of modified Gleason grading with pT stage of prostatic carcinoma after radical prostatectomy. Anal Quant Cytol Histol30:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-006-0310-6

Naito S, Kuroiwa K, Kinukawa N, Goto K, Koga H, Ogawa O, et al (2008) Validation of Partin tables and development of a preoperative nomogram for Japanese patients with clinically localized prostate cancer using 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology consensus on Gleason grading: data from the Clinicopathological Research Group for Localized Prostate Cancer. J Urol180:904–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.05.047

Delahunt B, Lamb DS, Srigley JR, Murray JD, Wilcox C, Samaratunga H et al (2010) Gleason scoring: a comparison of classical and modified [international society of urological pathology] criteria using nadir PSA as a clinical end point. Pathology 42:339–343. https://doi.org/10.3109/00313021003787924

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Uemura H, Hoshino K, Sasaki T, Miyoshi Y, Ishiguro H, Inayama Y, et al (2009) Usefulness of the 2005 International Society of Urologic Pathology Gleason grading system in prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. BJU Int103:1190–4. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.08197

Billis A, Quintal MM, Meirelles L, Freitas LL, Costa LB, Bonfitto JF et al (2014) The value of the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology [ISUP] modified Gleason grading system as a predictor of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Int Urol Nephrol 46:935–940. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-013-0579-8

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Kir G, Sarbay BC, Gümüş E, Topal CS (2014) The association of the cribriform pattern with outcome for prostatic adenocarcinomas. Pathol Res Pract 210:640–644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prp.2014.06.002

Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Shah RB (2009) Current perspectives on the Gleason grading of prostate cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med 133:1810–1816. https://doi.org/10.5858/133.11.1810

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Kamitani R, Matsumoto K, Kosaka T, Takeda T, Hashiguchi A, Tanaka N, et al (2021)Evaluation of Gleason grade group 5 in a contemporary prostate cancer grading system and literature review. Clin Genitourin Cancer 19(1): 69–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2020.08.001

Rai NN, Mandawat P, Gupta V, Dubey K (2019) Comparison of Old Gleason score with Modified Gleason score and correlation of needle prostate biopsy with PSA. IJCMR 6(8):11–5. https://doi.org/10.21276/ijcmr.2019.6.8.51

Barakzai MA (2009) Prostatic adenocarcinoma: a grading from gleason to the new grade-group system: a historical and critical review. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 20(3): 661–6. https://doi.org/10.31557/APJCP.2019.20.3.661

Shah MB, Raju K, Kumar H (2018) Revisiting prostate biopsy with 2014 ISUP modified gleason score and cleason grade. Biomed Res Ther 5(12): 2918–25. https://doi.org/10.15419/bmrat.v5il2.511

Dell'Oglio P, Karnes RJ, Gandaglia G, Fossati N, Stabile A, Moschini M,et al (2017) The new prostate cancer grading system does not improve prediction of clinical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: results of a large, two‐centre validation study. The Prostate 2017; 77(3): 263–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.23265

Bansal C, Anand G, Goyal A (2025) Evolution of Gleason Score Prostate- A Review. Indian J Surg Oncol. 15:598–604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13193-025-02251-6

Article  Google Scholar 

Altok M, Troncoso P, Achim MF, Matin SF, Gonzalez GN, Davis JW (2019) Prostate cancer upgrading or downgrading of biopsy Gleason scores at radical prostatectomy prediction of “regression to the mean” using routine clinical features with correlating biochemical relapse rates. Asian J Androl 21(6):598–604. https://doi.org/10.4103/aja.aja_29_19

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Gondo T, Poon BY, Matsumoto K, Bernstein M, Sjoberg DD, Eastham JA (2014) Clinical role of pathological downgrading after radical prostatectomy in patients with biopsy- proven gleason score 3+4 prostate cancer. BJU Int 13; 115(1): 81–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12769

Mehta V, Rycyna K, Baesens BMM, Barkan GA, Paner GP, Flanigan RC et al (2012) Predictors of Gleason Score (GS) upgrading on subsequent prostatectomy : a single Institution study in a cohort of patients with GS 6. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 5(6):496–502

PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Epstein JI (2018) Prostate cancer grading: a decade after the 2005 modified system. Mod Pathol 31(1):47–63. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2017.133

Article  Google Scholar