Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The 2014 ISUP grade group system: the Holy Grail or yet another hype?

  • Letter to the Editor
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

The Original Article was published on 02 April 2019

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  1. Offermann A, Hupe MC, Sailer V et al (2020) The new ISUP 2014/WHO 2016 prostate cancer grade group system: first résumé 5 years after introduction and systemic review of the literature. World J Urol 38:657–662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02744-4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. He J, Albertsen PC, Moore D, Rotter D, Demissie K, Lu-Yao G (2017) Validation of a contemporary five-tiered Gleason grade grouping using population-based data. Eur Urol 71(5):760–763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.11.031(Epub 2016 Dec 7)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Dell’Oglio P, Karnes RJ, Gandaglia G, Fossati N, Stabile A, Moschini M, Cucchiara V, Zaffuto E, Karakiewicz PI, Suardi N, Montorsi F, Briganti A (2017) The new prostate cancer grading system does not improve prediction of clinical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: results of a large, two-center validation study. Prostate 77(3):263–273. https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.23265

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chan TY, Partin AW, Walsh PC, Epstein JI (2000) Prognostic significance of Gleason score 3+4 versus Gleason score 4+3 tumor at radical prostatectomy. Urology 56:823–827. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(00)00753-6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Tsao CK, Gray KP, Nakabayashi M, Evan C, Kantoff PW, Huang J et al (2015) Patients with biopsy Gleason 9 and 10 prostate cancer have significantly worse outcomes compared with Gleason 8 disease. J Urol 194:91–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.01.078

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD, Nelson JB, Egevad L, Magi-Galluzzi C, Vickers AJ, Parwani AV, Reuter VE, Fine SW, Eastham JA, Wiklund P, Han M, Reddy CA, Ciezki JP, Nyberg T, Klein EA (2016) A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason score. Eur Urol 69:428–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Spratt DE, Jackson WC, Abugharib A, Tomlins SA, Dess RT, Soni PD, Lee JY, Zhao SG, Cole AI, Zumsteg ZS, Sandler H, Hamstra D, Hearn JW, Palapattu G, Mehra R, Morgan TM, Feng FY (2016) Independent validation of the prognostic capacity of the ISUP prostate cancer grade grouping system for radiation treated patients with long-term follow-up. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 19(3):292–297. https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2016.18

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Grogan J, Gupta R, Mahon KL, Stricker PD, Haynes AM, Delprado W, Turner J, Horvath LG, Kench JG (2017) Predictive value of the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology grading system for prostate cancer in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy with long-term follow-up. BJU Int 120(5):651–658. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13857

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Milonas D, Venclovas Ž, Gudinaviciene I, Auskalnis S, Zviniene K, Jurkiene N, Basevicius A, Patasius A, Jievaltas M, Joniau S (2019) Impact of the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology grading system on concept of high-risk prostate cancer: comparison of long-term oncological outcomes in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Front Oncol 9:1272. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2019.01272(eCollection 2019)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Wissing M, Brimo F, Chevalier S, Scarlata E, McKercher G, O'Flaherty A, Aprikian S, Thibodeau V, Saad F, Carmel M, Lacombe L, Têtu B, Ekindi-Ndongo N, Latour M, Trudel D, Aprikian A (2019) Optimization of the 2014 Gleason grade grouping in a Canadian cohort of patients with localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 123(4):624–631. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14512(Epub 2018 Sep 11)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania

    Daimantas Milonas

  2. Department of Urology, Leuven University Hospital, Leuven, Belgium

    Daimantas Milonas & Steven Joniau

Authors
  1. Daimantas Milonas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Steven Joniau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daimantas Milonas.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Milonas, D., Joniau, S. The 2014 ISUP grade group system: the Holy Grail or yet another hype?. World J Urol 39, 1315–1316 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03230-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03230-y

Search

Navigation