Accurate Gleason grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma in prostate needle biopsies by general pathologists

Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

Volumn 127, Issue 8, 2003, Pages 1007-1008

  Renshaw, Andrew A ^a   Schultz, Delray ^b   Cote, Kerri ^c   Loffredo, Marian ^c   Ziemba, David E ^d   D'Amico, Anthony V ^c  

^a BAPTIST HOSPITAL OF MIAMI   (United States)

^b MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^d St Luke's Hospital   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER GRADING; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NEEDLE BIOPSY; PATHOLOGIST; PERFORMANCE; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATE ADENOCARCINOMA; PROSTATE BIOPSY; SCORING SYSTEM; TUMOR VOLUME; ADENOCARCINOMA; COMPARATIVE STUDY; METHODOLOGY; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATHOLOGY; PROSTATE TUMOR; STANDARD; STATISTICS;

ADENOCARCINOMA; BIOPSY, NEEDLE; HUMANS; MALE; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATHOLOGY, CLINICAL; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS;

EID: 0041765728     PISSN: 00039985     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (9)

1. Fukagai T, Namiki T, Namiki H, Carlile RG, Shimada M, Yoshida H. Discrepancies between Gleason scores of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Pathol Int. 2001;51:364-370.
2. Djavan B, Kadesky K, Klopukh B, Marberger M, Roehrborn CG. Gleason scores from prostate biopsies obtained with 18-gauge biopsy needles poorly predict Gleason scores of radical prostatectomy specimens. Eur Urol. 1998;33:261-270.
3. Steinberg DM, Sauvageot J, Piantadosi S, Epstein JI. Correlation of prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason grade in academic and community settings. Am J Surg Pathol. 1997;21:566-576.
4. King CR. Patterns of prostate cancer biopsy grading: trends and clinical implications. Int J Cancer. 2000;90:305-311.
5. McLean M, Srigley J, Banerjee D, Warde P, Hao Y. Interobserver variation in prostate cancer Gleason scoring: are there implications for the design of clinical trials and treatment strategies? Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 1997;9:222-225.
6. Allsbrook WC, Mangold KA, Johnson MH, Lane RB, Lane CG, Epstein JI. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: general pathologist. Hum Pathol. 2001;32:81-88.
7. Allsbrook WC, Mangold KA, Johnson MH, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: urologic pathologists. Hum Pathol. 2001;32:74-80.
8. Renshaw AA, Richie JP, Loughlin KR, Jiroutek M, Chung A, D'Amico AV. The maximum diameter of prostatic carcinoma is a simple, inexpensive, and independent predictor of PSA failure in radical prostatectomies: results in a cohort of 434 patients. Am J Clin Pathol. 1999;111:641-644.
9. Epstein JI, Pound CR, Partin AW, Walsh PC. Progression following radical prostatectomy in men with Gleason score 7 tumor. J Urol. 1998;160:97-101.