Glioma patients mainly rely on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) to make a preliminary imaging diagnosis of glioma before surgery. However, the definitive diagnosis of glioma can only be confirmed after intraoperative or postoperative tumor resection or biopsy to obtain tumor specimens and definitive pathological diagnosis. In recent years, the rapid development of molecular pathology has raised the diagnosis of glioma to a new level, which not only ensures the accuracy of the diagnosis but also estimates the prognosis of patients. Therefore, molecular pathology is becoming an important part of the pathologic diagnosis of gliomas. Advances in molecular pathology and tumor genetics have provided more detailed information for the diagnosis of gliomas, which is not only of great significance for the prognosis assessment of patients, but also helpful for the clinical grading of tumors and the selection of treatment modalities. In the past, the classification and grading of CNS tumors in China did not form a unified understanding, which caused certain obstacles to clinical and scientific research. However, with the publication of a new classification method of nervous system tumors by Kleihues et al. in 2000, this problem can be answered. This classification method combines the biological characteristics of tumors and the clinical manifestations and survival prognosis of patients with the histological point of view, and decides the grading of malignant degree of tumors by combining various factors. In addition, this classification method covers a wide range of tumors, including not only central nervous system tumors but also peripheral nervous system tumors. At present, it has become an international unified standard. Finally, it should be noted that in some areas of China, especially in some small and medium-sized hospitals, due to the lack of skilled neuropathologists, the post-surgical pathological diagnosis is not precise enough, and in some areas, the WHO classification has not been adopted, which results in the lack of a reliable histological basis for the follow-up treatment of the patients after surgery. This is very unfavorable to the comprehensive treatment of patients and the improvement of the therapeutic effect, and also makes it difficult to evaluate and compare the clinical efficacy.