Vol. 44 (6): 1057-1062, November – December, 2018
doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2018.06.01
EDITORIAL In this issue
Brett Delahunt 1, Lars Egevad 2, 3, John Yaxley 4, 5, Hemamali Samaratunga 5, 6
1 Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Wellington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Wellington, New Zealand; 2 Department of Pathology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden; 3 Department of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden; 4 Wesley Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; 5 University of Queensland School of Medicine, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; 6 Aquesta Uropathology , Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
INTRODUCTION
Grading is an important prognostic indicator for tumors and for most malignancies provides information additional to staging. As with staging, grading criteria for individual tumors are subject to change, with developments reflecting contemporary advances in our understanding of the behavior of tumors. In the field of urological pathology, the grading classifications most commonly utilized for both renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and prostate adenocarcinoma (PCa) have undergone radical change. This evolution has, most recently, led to the establishment of novel grading systems for both of these tumors, under the auspices of the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) (1, 2). The release of the Fourth Edition of the World Health Organization (WHO) Bluebook on the Classification of Tumours of the Urinary Tract and Male Genital Organs in 2016 (3), followed on from the development of these contemporary grading classifications. In this publication these novel classifications, relating to the two most common morphotypes of RCC and for PCa, were endorsed for international implementation. Subsequently both grading classifications have been incorporated into the reporting datasets issued by the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (4, 5).
