TY - JOUR T1 - Borderline Gleason scores: communication is the key JF - Journal of Clinical Pathology JO - J Clin Pathol SP - 616 LP - 617 DO - 10.1136/jclinpath-2020-206948 VL - 73 IS - 10 AU - Murali Varma AU - Brett Delahunt AU - Theodorus H van der Kwast AU - Sean R Williamson AU - Daniel M Berney Y1 - 2020/10/01 UR - http://jcp.bmj.com/content/73/10/616.abstract N2 - The biopsy Gleason score (GS) is a critical component of patient management having been demonstrated to be an excellent predictor of patient outcome.1 2 While the application of Gleason grading is generally straightforward, grading is subject to significant interobserver variation3 and divergent opinions may confuse clinicians and patients.Interobserver variation may be due to the application of different grading rules or more commonly different interpretations of borderline morphological appearances. The former is avoidable and multiple consensus conferences have sought to define uniform criteria for grading prostate cancer.4–7 However, the latter is inevitable in a morphological continuum. We seek to explain why precise grading becomes less important in this scenario, if the findings are effectively communicated by the pathologist and correctly interpreted by the clinician.Gleason grades commonly represent a morphological continuum from well-formed glands (pattern 3) to increasingly smaller-sized and poorly formed glandular proliferations (pattern 4) and finally to almost no glandular differentiation (pattern 5). Thus, GS is often a continuous variable with arbitrary cut-offs. This is analogous to serum Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) where arbitrary cut-offs are used to categorise patients into risk groups. However, unlike serum PSA, grade is reported as … ER -