The value of the modified Gleason grading system of prostate adenocarcinoma in routine urological diagnostics;Die wertigkeit des 2005 modifizierten Gleason-gradings in der urologischen diagnostik von prostatakarzinomen

Urologe - Ausgabe A

Volumn 46, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 59-62

  Helpap, B ^a,d   Egevad, L ^b,c  

^a Institut fur Pathologie   (Germany)

^b KAROLINSKA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^c INTERNATIONAL AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER   (France)

^d UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Adenocarcinoma; Conventional and modified Gleason grading system; Core needle biopsy; Prostate; Radical prostatectomy

Indexed keywords

CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; GLEASON SCORE; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HISTOLOGY; HUMAN; MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION; NEEDLE BIOPSY; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATE; PROSTATE ADENOCARCINOMA; PROSTATECTOMY; REPRODUCIBILITY; REVIEW; UROLOGY;

ADENOCARCINOMA; BIOPSY, NEEDLE; DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES, UROLOGICAL; GERMANY; HUMANS; MALE; NEOPLASM STAGING; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS;

EID: 33846484338     PISSN: 03402592     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00120-006-1238-9     Document Type: Review

References (14)

1. Amin M, Boccon-Gibod L, Egevad L et al. (2005) Prognostic and predictive factors and reporting of prostate carcinoma in prostate needle biopsy specimens. Scand J Urol Nephrol 39: 20-33
2. Epstein JI (2000) Gleason score 2-4 adenocarcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: a diagnosis that should not be made. Am J Surg Pathol 24: 477-478
3. Epstein H, Algaba F, Allbrooks J et al. (2004) Acinar adenocarcinoma. In: Eble JN, Sauter G, Epstein JI (eds) World Health Organization classification of tumors. Pathology and genetics: Tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs. IARC Press, Lyon, pp 179-184
4. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC, Amin MB et al. (2005) The 2005 international society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 29: 1228-1242
5. Glaessgen A, Hamberg H, Pihl CG et al. (2002) Interobserver reproducibility of percent Gleason grade 4/5 in total prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 168: 2006-2010
6. Gleason DF (1966) Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother (Rep Part) 50: 125-128
7. Helpap B (2002) Fundamentals on the pathology of prostatic ncarcinoma after brachytherapy. World J Urol 20: 207-212
8. Helpap, B, Egevad L (2006) The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Virchows Arch 450
9. Humphrey PA (2004) Gleason grading and prognostic factors in carcinoma of the prostate. Mod Pathol 17: 292-306
10. Lopez-Beltran A, Mikuz G, Luque RJ et al. (2006) Current practice of Gleason grading of prostate carcinoma. Virchows Arch 448: 111-118
11. Melia J, Moseley R, Ball RY et al. (2006) A UK-based investigation of inter-and intra-observer reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic biopsies. Histopathology 48: 644-654
12. Mills SE, Fowler JE (1986) Gleason histologic grading of prostatic carcinoma. Correlations between biopsy and prostatectomy specimens. Cancer 57: 346-349
13. Pan CC, Potter SR, Partin AW, Epstein JI (2000) The prognostic significance of tertiary Gleason patterns of higher grade in radical prostatectomy specimens: a proposal to modify the Gleason grading system. Am J Surg Pathol 24: 563-569
14. Partin AW, Kattan MW, Subong EN et al. (1997) Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer: a multi-institutional update JAMA 277: 1445-1451