Undergrading of prostate cancer biopsies: A paradox inherent in all biologic bivariate distributions

Urology

Volumn 47, Issue 3, 1996, Pages 289-291

  Gleason, Donald F ^a,b  

^a Veterans Administration   (United States)

^b NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER GRADING; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; NEEDLE BIOPSY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER;

EID: 0029944421     PISSN: 00904295     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0090-4295(99)80441-5     Document Type: Article

References (6)

1. Catalona WA, Stein AJ, and Fair WR: Grading errors in prostatic needle biopsies: relation to the accuracy of tumor grade in predicting pelvic lymph node metastases. J Urol 127: 919-922, 1982.
2. Lange PH, and Narayan P: Understaging and undergrading of prostate cancer. Argument for postoperative radiation as adjuvant therapy. Urology 21: 113-118, 1983.
3. Bostwick DG: Gleason grading of prostatic needle biopsies. Correlation with grade in 316 matched prostatectomies. Am J Surg Pathol 18: 796-803, 1994.
4. Parker ME: Gleason grading (letter). Am J Surg Pathol 19: 852-854, 1995.
5. Treloar AE: Biometric Analysis. An Introduction. Minneapolis, Burgess Publishing, 1951, p 192.
6. Gleason DF: Histologic grading and clinical staging of carcinoma of the prostate, in Tannenbaum M (Ed): Urologic Pathology. Philadelphia, Lea & Febiger, 1977, pp 171-198.