Purpose: To compare time and risk to biochemical recurrence (BR) after radical prostatectomy of two chronologically different groups of patients using the standard and the modified Gleason system (MGS). Methods: Cohort 1 comprised biopsies of 197 patients graded according to the standard Gleason system (SGS) in the period 1997/2004, and cohort 2, 176 biopsies graded according to the modified system in the period 2005/2011. Time to BR was analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier product-limit analysis and prediction of shorter time to recurrence using univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Patients in cohort 2 reflected time-related changes: striking increase in clinical stage T1c, systematic use of extended biopsies, and lower percentage of total length of cancer in millimeter in all cores. The MGS used in cohort 2 showed fewer biopsies with Gleason score ≤6 and more biopsies of the intermediate Gleason score 7. Time to BR using the Kaplan-Meier curves showed statistical significance using the MGS in cohort 2, but not the SGS in cohort 1. Only the MGS predicted shorter time to BR on univariate analysis and on multivariate analysis was an independent predictor. Conclusions: The results favor that the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology modified system is a refinement of the Gleason grading and valuable for contemporary clinical practice. © Springer Science+Business Media 2013.465935940Bailar 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. 129-136Gleason, D.F., Classification of prostatic carcinomas (1966) Cancer Chemother Rep, 50, pp. 125-128Mellinger, G.T., Gleason, D., Bailar III, J., The histology and prognosis of prostatic cancer (1967) J Urol, 97, pp. 331-337Gleason, D.F., Mellinger, G.T., Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging (1974) J Urol, 11, pp. 58-64Mellinger, G.T., Prognosis of prostatic carcinoma (1977) Recent Results Cancer Res, 60, pp. 61-72Epstein, J.I., Allsbrook Jr., W.C., Amin, M.B., Egevad, L.L., The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma (2005) Am J Surg Pathol, 29, pp. 1228-1242. , The ISUP grading committeeBerney, D.M., Fisher, G., Kattan, M.W., Oliver, R.T.D., Moller, H., Fearn, P., Eastham, J., Foster, C.S., Major shifts in the treatment and prognosis of prostate cancer due to changes in pathological diagnosis and grading (2007) BJU Int, 100, pp. 1240-1244. , for the Trans-Atlantic prostate groupMitchell, R.E., Shah, J.B., Desai, M., Mansukhani, M.M., Olsson, C.A., Benson, M.C., McKiernan, J.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 (4), pp. 706-710. , DOI 10.1016/j.urology.2007.06.1084, PII S0090429507013052Billis, A., Guimaraes, M.S., Freitas, L.L.L., Meirelles, L., Magna, L.A., Ferreira, U., The impact of the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology consensus conference on standard Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in needle biopsies (2008) J Urol, 180, pp. 548-553Uemura, H., Hoshino, K., Sasaki, T., Miyoshi, Y., Ishiguro, H., Inayama, Y., Kubota, Y., Usefulness of the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology Gleason grading system in prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens (2009) BJU Int, 103, pp. 1190-1194Tsivian, M., Sun, L., Mouraviev, V., Madden, J.F., Mayes, J.M., Moul, J.W., Polascik, T.J., Changes in Gleason score grading and their effect in predicting outcome after radical prostatectomy (2009) Urology, 74, pp. 1090-1093Dong, F., Wang, C., Farris, A.B., Wu, S., Lee, H., Olumi, A.F., McDougal, W.S., Wu, C.L., Impact on the clinical outcome of prostate cancer by 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology modified Gleason grading system (2012) Am J Surg Pathol, 36, pp. 838-843Delahunt, B., Lamb, D.S., Srigley, J.R., Murray, J.D., Wilcox, C., Samaratunga, H., Atkinson, C., Denham, J.W., Gleason scoring: A comparison of classical and modified (international of urological pathology) criteria using nadir PSA as a clinical end point (2010) Pathology, 42, pp. 339-343Cookson, M.S., Aus, G., Burnett, A.L., Canby-Hagino, E.D., D'Amico, A.V., Dmochowski, R.R., Eton, D.T., Thompson, I., Variation in the Definition of Biochemical Recurrence in Patients Treated for Localized Prostate Cancer: The American Urological Association Prostate Guidelines for Localized Prostate Cancer Update Panel Report and Recommendations for a Standard in the Reporting of Surgical Outcomes (2007) Journal of Urology, 177 (2), pp. 540-545. , DOI 10.1016/j.juro.2006.10.097, PII S0022534706028576Billis, A., Magna, L.A., Ferreira, U., Correlation between tumor extent in radical prostatectomies and preoperative PSA, histological grade, surgical margins, and extraprostatic extension: Application of a new practical method for tumor extent evaluation (2003) International Braz J Urol, 29 (2), pp. 113-120