Review ArticlesSimilarities and Differences in the 2019 ISUP and GUPS Recommendations on Prostate Cancer Grading: A Guide for Practicing PathologistsSmith, Steven C. MD, PhD*; Gandhi, Jatin S. MD†; Moch, Holger MD‡; Aron, Manju MD§; Compérat, Eva MD, PhD∥; Paner, Gladell P. MD¶; McKenney, Jesse K. MD#; Amin, Mahul B. MD**Author Information *Department of Pathology and Urology, VCU School of Medicine, Richmond, VA Departments of †Pathology and Laboratory Medicine **Urology, University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center, Memphis, TN ‡Department of Pathology and Molecular Pathology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland §Department of Pathology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA ∥Department of Pathology, Hôpital Tenon, Sorbonne University, Paris, France; AKH, Meduni Wien, Vienna, Austria ¶Department of Pathology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL #Department of Pathology, Robert J. Tomsich Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH S.C.S. and J.S.G. contributed equally. M.B.A. serves on the advisory board for Ibex and is a consultant for Advanced Clinical providing consultations for artificial intelligence applications in Anatomic Pathology for both these organizations. The remaining authors have no funding or conflicts of interest to disclose. Reprints: Steven C. Smith, MD, PhD, Department of Pathology, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, 1200 E Marshall Street, P.O. Box 980662, Richmond, VA 23298 (e-mail: [email protected]). Advances In Anatomic Pathology: January 2021 - Volume 28 - Issue 1 - p 1-7 doi: 10.1097/PAP.0000000000000287 Buy Metrics Abstract Contemporary subspecialization of practice in prostate pathology has seen a transition to complex, nuanced reporting, where a growing number of histopathologic parameters may signal differences in patient management. In this context, the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) and the Genitourinary Pathology Society (GUPS) both published proceedings papers on the grading of prostate cancer in 2019. Overall, the 2 prostate cancer grading manuscripts reached many of the same conclusions and recommendations. Yet, each consensus was conducted somewhat differently, and in a couple of key areas, each reached different conclusions and recommendations. Herein, sourced from the experience and viewpoints of members of both societies, we provide the practicing pathologist a summary of the shared recommendations, and of the discordances. It is anticipated that these 2 documents will inform future iterations of recommendations and guidelines for reporting prostate cancer by organizations such as the College of American Pathologists, the Royal College of Pathologists, and the European Society of Pathology, which will promote best practices for their respective constituents. Our goal is to provide the practicing pathologist a useful catalog of the main points of both, allowing each practitioner to make informed decisions and understand any divergent opinions as may arise between observers for individual cases. Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.