The distinction between cribriform Gleason pattern 3 and 4 prostate cancer is controversial. Out of 3590 prostate cancers sent to one of the authors over 7 months, 30 needle biopsy cases were selected that possibly represented cribriform Gleason pattern 3 cancer. Thirty-six digital images were taken and sent to 10 experts in prostate pathology. Consensus was defined when at least 7/10 experts agreed on the grade. Sixty-seven percent (n=24) of images reached consensus (23 pattern 4; 1 pattern 3). Of the 12 nonconsensus images, 7 were favor pattern 4 (6/10 experts agreed), 1 was favor pattern 3 (6/10 experts agreed), and 4 were equivocal (<6 experts agreed). The most common criteria used to call pattern 4 in the 23 consensus pattern 4 images were in frequency: irregular contour, irregular distribution of lumens, slit-like lumens, large glands, number of glands, and small lumens. In the only consensus pattern 3 image, criteria used were regular contour, small glands, regular distribution of lumens, and uniform round lumens. Discrepancy between experts was qualified as primarily objective (different criteria present) in 38%, subjective (different interpretation of the same criteria) in 12%, and mixed (both objective and subjective) in 50%. The most frequent situation with different interpretations of the same criteria were regular versus irregular contour and small versus large glands, with the former more common. Even in this highly selected set of images thought to be the best candidates for cribriform pattern 3 from a busy consult service, most experts interpreted the cribriform patterns as pattern 4. Moreover, most of the cribriform foci investigated (73%) were associated with more definitive pattern 4 elsewhere on the needle biopsy specimen. In conclusion, most of the small cribriform cancer foci seen on needle biopsy should be interpreted as Gleason pattern 4 and not pattern 3. © 2008 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.321015321539Amin, M.B., Schultz, D.S., Zarbo, R.J., Analysis of cribriform morphology in prostatic neoplasia using antibody to high-molecular-weight cytokeratins (1994) Arch Pathol Lab Med, 118, pp. 260-264Bailar III, J.C., Mellinger, G.T., Gleason, D.F., Survival rates of patients with prostatic cancer, tumor stage, and differentiation - preliminary report (1966) Cancer Chemother Rep, 50, pp. 129-136Bostwick, D.G., Amin, M.B., Dundore, P., Architectural patterns of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (1993) Hum Pathol, 24, pp. 298-310Cohen, R.J., McNeal, J.E., Baillie, T., Patterns of differentiation and proliferation in intraductal carcinoma of the prostate: Significance for cancer progression (2000) Prostate, 43, pp. 11-19Cohen, R.J., Wheeler, T.M., Bonkhoff, H., A proposal on the identification, histologic reporting, and implications of intraductal prostatic carcinoma (2007) Arch Pathol Lab Med, 131, pp. 1103-1109Egevad, L., Granfors, T., Karlberg, L., Prognostic value of the Gleason score in prostate cancer (2002) BJU Int, 89, pp. 538-542Egevad, L., Allsbrook Jr, W.C., Epstein, J.I., Current practice of Gleason grading among genitourinary pathologists (2005) Hum Pathol, 36, pp. 5-9Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, et al. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:1228-1242Gleason, D.F., Classification of prostatic carcinomas (1966) Cancer Chemother Rep, 50, pp. 125-128Gleason, D.F., Mellinger, G.T., Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging (1974) J Urol, 111, pp. 58-64Guo, C.C., Epstein, J.I., Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: Histologic features and clinical significance (2006) Mod Pathol, 19, pp. 1528-1535Helpap, B., Egevad, L., The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens (2006) Virchows Arch, 449, pp. 622-627Lopez-Beltran, A., Mikuz, G., Luque, R.J., Current practice of Gleason grading of prostate carcinoma (2006) Virchows Arch, 448, pp. 111-118Martinez-Rodriguez, M., Ramos, D., Mayordomo, E., Analysis of cribriform Gleason grade 3 in prostatic carcinoma. A histopathological and immunohistochemical study of 32 cases (2007) Histopathology, 51, pp. 717-719McNeal, J.E., Yemoto, C.E., Spread of adenocarcinoma within prostatic ducts and acini. Morphologic and clinical correlations (1996) Am J Surg Pathol, 20, pp. 802-814Mitchell, R.E., Shah, J.B., Desai, M., Changes in prognostic significance and predictive accuracy of Gleason grading system throughout PSA era: Impact of grade migration in prostate cancer (2007) Urology, 70, pp. 706-710Qian, J., Jenkins, R.B., Bostwick, D.G., Detection of chromosomal anomalies and c-myc gene amplification in the cribriform pattern of prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and carcinoma by fluorescence in situ hybridization (1997) Mod Pathol, 10, pp. 1113-1119Rubin, M.A., de La Taille, A., Bagiella, E., Cribriform carcinoma of the prostate and cribriform prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia: Incidence and clinical implications (1998) Am J Surg Pathol, 22, pp. 840-848Wilcox, G., Soh, S., Chakraborty, S., Patterns of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia associated with clinically aggressive prostate cancer (1998) Hum Pathol, 29, pp. 1119-1123