“…The Gleason grading system underwent further specifications, orchestrated by the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP), that aimed to standardize current practice which, over the years, had begun to deviate from the original description by Donald Gleason [24,25,26]. Despite all efforts, it must be said that the interobserver variability of this powerful grading system was, and remains, moderate, and that further work is necessary to harmonize the human perception of morphological patterns [27,28,29], or support it with computer-assisted analysis [30,31]. Alternatively, molecular markers may come to our aid to improve our classification of prostate cancer.…”