Clinical predictors of gleason score upgrading: Implications for patients considering watchful waiting, active surveillance, or brachytherapy

Cancer

Volumn 109, Issue 12, 2007, Pages 2432-2438

  Kulkarni, Girish S ^a   Lockwood, Gina ^a   Evans, Andrew ^a   Toi, Ants ^a   Trachtenberg, John ^a   Jewett, Michael A S ^a   Finelli, Antonio ^a   Fleshner, Neil E ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY HEALTH NETWORK   (Canada)

^b PRINCESS MARGARET HOSPITAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BRACHYTHERAPY; DIGITAL RECTAL EXAMINATION; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; PATIENT MONITORING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; RISK ASSESSMENT; TRANSRECTAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY; WATCHFUL WAITING;

ADULT; AGED; BIOPSY, NEEDLE; BRACHYTHERAPY; DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM STAGING; PATIENT SELECTION; POPULATION SURVEILLANCE; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATE; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK FACTORS; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 34250209140     PISSN: 0008543X     EISSN: 10970142     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.22712     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1998;280:969-974.
2. Cooperberg MR, Lubeck DP, Meng MV, Mehta SS, Carroll PR. The changing face of low-risk prostate cancer: Trends in clinical presentation and primary management. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:2141-2149.
3. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Fine J. 20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 2005;293:2095-2101.
4. D'Amico AV, Renshaw AA, Arsenault L, Schultz D, Richie JP. Clinical predictors of upgrading to Gleason grade 4 or 5 disease at radical prostatectomy: potential implications for patient selection for radiation and androgen suppression therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;45:841-846.
5. 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.
6. Pinthus JH, Witkos M, Fleshner NE, et al. Prostate cancers scored as Gleason 6 on prostate biopsy are frequently Gleason 7 tumors at radical prostatectomy: implication on outcome. J Urol. 2006;176:979-984; discussion 984.
7. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Barrows GH, et al. Prostate cancer and the Will Rogers phenomenon. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005; 97:1248-1253.
8. Comment in: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97: 1236-1237.
9. Steyerberg EW, Eijkemans MJ, Harrell FE Jr, Habbema JD. Prognostic modeling with logistic regression analysis: in search of a sensible strategy in small data sets. Med Decis Making. 2001;21:45-56.
10. nd ed. New York: John Wiley; 2000.
11. Harrell FE. Regression modeling strategies: with applications to linear models, logistic regression and survival analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2001.
12. King CR, Patel DA, Terris MK. Prostate biopsy volume indices do not predict for significant Gleason upgrading. Am J Clin Oncol. 2005;28:125-129.
13. Chun FK, Briganti A, Shariat SF, et al. Significant upgrading affects a third of men diagnosed with prostate cancer: predictive nomogram and internal validation. BJU Int. 2006;98:329-334.
14. Thompson IM, Ankerst DP, Chi C, et al. Assessing prostate cancer risk: results from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:529-534.
15. Gleason DF. Histologic grading of prostate cancer: a perspective. Hum Pathol. 1992;23:273-279.
16. Kulkarni GS, Al-Azab R, Lockwood G, et al. Evidence for a biopsy derived grade artifact among larger prostate glands. J Urol. 2006;175:505-509.
17. Allsbrook WC Jr, 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. Erratum in: Hum Pathol. 2001; 32:1417.
18. Elabbady AA, Khedr MM. Extended 12-core prostate biopsy increases both the detection of prostate cancer and the accuracy of Gleason score. Eur Urol. 2006;49:49-53; discussion 53.
19. King CR, McNeal JE, Gill H, Presti JC Jr. Extended prostate biopsy scheme improves reliability of Gleason grading: Implications for radiotherapy patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;59:386-391.
20. Emiliozzi P, Maymone S, Paterno A, et al. Increased accuracy of biopsy Gleason score obtained by extended needle biopsy. J Urol. 2004;172:2224-2226.
21. Cowen ME, Halasyamani LK, Kattan MW. Predicting life expectancy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2006;175:99-103.
22. Slawin KM, Kattan MW, Roehrborn CG, Wilson T. Development of nomogram to predict acute urinary retention or surgical intervention, with or without dutasteride therapy, in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology. 2006;67: 84-88.
23. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL; ISUP Grading Committee. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:1228-1242.