Skip to main content

Table 2 One-level downgrade, concordance, and one-level upgrade when compared with biopsy Grade Group and radical prostatectomy Grade Group in large series post-2005 ISUP consensus. One-level downgrade rate is shown at the right, concordance rate is centered and italicized, and one-level upgrade is shown at the left. Rates are expressed as percentage

From: Current topics on prostate and bladder pathology

First author, year How grade was assessed in biopsy Number of patients Country Grade
Grade group Grade group Grade group Grade group Grade group
ISUP/WHO 1 ISUP/WHO 2 ISUP/WHO 3 ISUP/WHO 4 ISUP/WHO 5
GS ≤6 GS 7 (3+4) GS 7 (4+3) GS 8 GS > 8
Athanazio 2017 CGG 2,529 Canada NA-48-48 07-74-16 30-53-07 30-21-33 02-68-NA
Danneman 2016 Not informed 15,598 Sweden NA-65-28 17-68-18 30-50-08 33-33-12 08-64-NA
Samaratunga 2015 HGS 2,079 Australia NA-43-45 00-72-24 15-75-11 44-18-34 00-77-NA
Epstein 2012 HGS 5,071 US NA-75-20 24-54-18 32-41-08 31-31-18 11-58-NA
  1. Note: CGG Composite Grade Group based on findings of all biopsy cores, HGS highest Gleason score in one core or region, NA not applicable
Back to article page

Surgical and Experimental Pathology

ISSN: 2520-8454

Contact us