This review article will cover the evolution of grading of prostate cancer from the original Gleason system in the 1960-1970s to a more patient-centric grading system proposed in 2013 from a group at ...Johns Hopkins Hospital, validated in 2014 by a large multi-institutional study, and subsequently accepted by the World Health Organization (WHO), College of American Pathology (CAP), and the AJCC TNM system. Covered topics include: (1) historical background; (2) 2005 and 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology Grading Conferences; (3) Description of Gleason patterns; (4) new approaches to display Gleason grades; (5) grading variants and variations of acinar adenocarcinoma; (6) reporting rules for Gleason grading reporting secondary patterns of higher grade when present to a limited extent; (7) reporting secondary patterns of lower grade when present to a limited extent; (8) reporting percentage pattern 4; (9) general applications of the Gleason grading system; (10) needle biopsy with different cores showing different grades; (11) radical prostatectomy specimens with separate tumor nodules; and (12) a new grading system for prostate cancer.
Purpose An update is provided of the Gleason grading system, which has evolved significantly since its initial description. Materials and Methods A search was performed using the MEDLINE® database ...and referenced lists of relevant studies to obtain articles concerning changes to the Gleason grading system. Results Since the introduction of the Gleason grading system more than 40 years ago many aspects of prostate cancer have changed, including prostate specific antigen testing, transrectal ultrasound guided prostate needle biopsy with greater sampling, immunohistochemistry for basal cells that changed the classification of prostate cancer and new prostate cancer variants. The system was updated at a 2005 consensus conference of international experts in urological pathology, under the auspices of the International Society of Urological Pathology. Gleason score 2–4 should rarely if ever be diagnosed on needle biopsy, certain patterns (ie poorly formed glands) originally considered Gleason pattern 3 are now considered Gleason pattern 4 and all cribriform cancer should be graded pattern 4. The grading of variants and subtypes of acinar adenocarcinoma of the prostate, including cancer with vacuoles, foamy gland carcinoma, ductal adenocarcinoma, pseudohyperplastic carcinoma and small cell carcinoma have also been modified. Other recent issues include reporting secondary patterns of lower and higher grades when present to a limited extent, and commenting on tertiary grade patterns which differ depending on whether the specimen is from needle biopsy or radical prostatectomy. Whereas there is little debate on the definition of tertiary pattern on needle biopsy, this issue is controversial in radical prostatectomy specimens. Although tertiary Gleason patterns are typically added to pathology reports, they are routinely omitted in practice since there is no simple way to incorporate them in predictive nomograms/tables, research studies and patient counseling. Thus, a modified radical prostatectomy Gleason scoring system was recently proposed to incorporate tertiary Gleason patterns in an intuitive fashion. For needle biopsy with different cores showing different grades, the current recommendation is to report the grades of each core separately, whereby the highest grade tumor is selected as the grade of the entire case to determine treatment, regardless of the percent involvement. After the 2005 consensus conference several studies confirmed the superiority of the modified Gleason system as well as its impact on urological practice. Conclusions It is remarkable that nearly 40 years after its inception the Gleason grading system remains one of the most powerful prognostic factors for prostate cancer. This system has remained timely because of gradual adaptations by urological pathologists to accommodate the changing practice of medicine.
The reporting of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDCP) is controversial, with conflicting recommendations having recently been published by the International Society of Urological Pathology ...(ISUP) and the Genitourinary Pathology Society (GUPS). Both recommend that isolated (pure) IDCP should not be graded. However, the ISUP recommends incorporating the IDCP component of invasive prostate cancer in the Gleason score, whereas the GUPS recommends reporting IDCP as a comment, independently of the Gleason score. The arguments for and against incorporating the IDCP component of invasive prostate cancer in the Gleason score are discussed in detail.
The definition of clinically significant prostate cancer is a dynamic process that was initiated many decades ago, when there was already evidence that a great proportion of patients with prostate ...cancer diagnosed at autopsy never had any clinical symptoms. Autopsy studies led to examinations of radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens and the establishment of the definition of significant cancer at RP: tumour volume of 0.5 cm3, Gleason grade 6 Grade Group (GrG) 1, and organ‐confined disease. RP studies were then used to develop prediction models for significant cancer by the use of needle biopsies. The first such model was used to delineate the first active surveillance (AS) criteria, known as the ‘Epstein’ criteria, in which patients with a cancer Gleason score of 3 + 3 = 6 (GrG1) involving fewer than two cores, and <50% of any given core, and a prostate‐specific antigen density of <0.15 ng/ml per cm3 had a minimal risk of significant cancer at RP. These were adopted as components of the ‘very‐low‐risk category’ of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, in which AS is supported as a management option. With the increase in the popularity of AS, much research has been carried out to better define significant/insignificant cancer, in order to be able to safely offer AS to a larger proportion of patients without the risk of undertreatment. Research has focused on allowing higher volume tumours, focal extraprostatic extension, and a limited amount of Gleason pattern 4, and the significance of different morphological patterns of Gleason 4. Other areas of research that will probably impact on the field but that are not covered in this review include the molecular classification of tumours and imaging techniques.
Cardiac injury remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Despite significant advances, a full understanding of why the heart fails to fully recover function after acute injury, and ...why progressive heart failure frequently ensues, remains elusive. No therapeutics, short of heart transplantation, have emerged to reliably halt or reverse the inexorable progression of heart failure in the majority of patients once it has become clinically evident. To date, most pharmacological interventions have focused on modifying hemodynamics (reducing afterload, controlling blood pressure and blood volume) or on modifying cardiac myocyte function. However, important contributions of the immune system to normal cardiac function and the response to injury have recently emerged as exciting areas of investigation. Therapeutic interventions aimed at harnessing the power of immune cells hold promise for new treatment avenues for cardiac disease. Here, we review the immune response to heart injury, its contribution to cardiac fibrosis, and the potential of immune modifying therapies to affect cardiac repair.
Transcription factor-based cellular reprogramming has opened the way to converting somatic cells to a pluripotent state, but has faced limitations resulting from the requirement for transcription ...factors and the relative inefficiency of the process. We show here that expression of the
miR302/367 cluster rapidly and efficiently reprograms mouse and human somatic cells to an iPSC state without a requirement for exogenous transcription factors. This miRNA-based reprogramming approach is two orders of magnitude more efficient than standard Oct4/Sox2/Klf4/Myc-mediated methods. Mouse and human
miR302/367 iPSCs display similar characteristics to Oct4/Sox2/Klf4/Myc-iPSCs, including pluripotency marker expression, teratoma formation, and, for mouse cells, chimera contribution and germline contribution. We found that
miR367 expression is required for
miR302/367-mediated reprogramming and activates
Oct4 gene expression, and that suppression of Hdac2 is also required. Thus, our data show that miRNA and Hdac-mediated pathways can cooperate in a powerful way to reprogram somatic cells to pluripotency.
Display omitted
► miRNAs alone can reprogram somatic cells to pluripotency ► The miR302/367 cluster reprograms both mouse and human fibroblasts ► miR367 is required for miR302/367 reprogramming ► Low Hdac2 levels are required for miR302/367 reprogramming
Despite significant changes in the clinical and histologic diagnosis of prostate cancer, the Gleason grading system remains one of the most powerful prognostic predictors in prostate cancer. The ...correct diagnosis and grading of prostate cancer is crucial for a patient's prognosis and therapeutic options. However, this system has undergone significant revisions and continues to have deficiencies that can potentially impact patient care.
We describe the current state of grading prostate cancer, focusing on the current guidelines for the Gleason grading system and recent changes from the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. We also explore the limitations of the current Gleason grading system and present a validated alternative to the Gleason score. The new grading system initially described in 2013 in a study from Johns Hopkins Hospital and then validated in a multi-institutional study, includes five distinct Grade Groups based on the modified Gleason score groups. Grade Group 1 = Gleason score ≤6, Grade Group 2 = Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7, Grade Group 3 = Gleason score 4 + 3 = 7, Grade Group 4 = Gleason score 8, Grade Group 5 = Gleason scores 9 and 10.
As this new grading system is simpler and more accurately reflects prostate cancer biology, it is recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) to be used in conjunction with Gleason grading.
Respiratory disease is the third leading cause of death in the industrialized world. Consequently, the trachea, lungs, and cardiopulmonary vasculature have been the focus of extensive investigations. ...Recent studies have provided new information about the mechanisms driving lung development and differentiation. However, there is still much to learn about the ability of the adult respiratory system to undergo repair and to replace cells lost in response to injury and disease. This Review highlights the multiple stem/progenitor populations in different regions of the adult lung, the plasticity of their behavior in injury models, and molecular pathways that support homeostasis and repair.
This review highlights the multiple stem/progenitor populations in different regions of the adult lung, the plasticity of their behavior in injury models, and molecular pathways that support homeostasis and repair.
From a clinical, morphological and molecular perspective, prostate cancer is a heterogeneous disease. Primary prostate cancers are often multifocal, having topographically and morphologically ...distinct tumour foci. Sequencing studies have revealed that individual tumour foci can arise as clonally distinct lesions with no shared driver gene alterations. This finding demonstrates that multiple genomically and phenotypically distinct primary prostate cancers can be present in an individual patient. Lethal metastatic prostate cancer seems to arise from a single clone in the primary tumour but can exhibit subclonal heterogeneity at the genomic, epigenetic and phenotypic levels. Collectively, this complex heterogeneous constellation of molecular alterations poses obstacles for the diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer. However, advances in our understanding of intra-tumoural heterogeneity and the development of novel technologies will allow us to navigate these challenges, refine approaches for translational research and ultimately improve patient care.
The Notch pathway is a crucial cell-fate regulator in the developing heart. Attention in the past centered on Notch function in cardiomyocytes. However, recent advances demonstrate that ...region-specific endocardial Notch activity orchestrates the patterning and morphogenesis of cardiac chambers and valves through regulatory interaction with multiple myocardial and neural crest signals. Notch also regulates cardiomyocyte proliferation and differentiation during ventricular chamber development and is required for coronary vessel specification. Here, we review these data and highlight disease connections, including evidence that Notch-Hey-Bmp2 interplay impacts adult heart valve disease and that Notch contributes to cardiac arrhythmia and pre-excitation syndromes.
PDF
