Comparing the Gleason Prostate Biopsy and Gleason Prostatectomy Grading System: The Lahey Clinic Medical Center Experience and an International Meta-Analysis

European Urology

Volumn 54, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 371-381

  Cohen, Michael S ^a   Hanley, Robert S ^a   Kurteva, Teodora ^b   Ruthazer, Robin ^c   Silverman, Mark L ^a   Sorcini, Andrea ^a   Hamawy, Karim ^a   Roth, Robert A ^a   Tuerk, Ingolf ^a   Libertino, John A ^a  

^a LAHEY HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b TUFTS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c TUFTS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Gleason grading system; Prostate biopsy; Prostate cancer

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; CANCER GRADING; CONTROLLED STUDY; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; RATING SCALE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

BIOPSY; HUMANS; MALE; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 45849130131     PISSN: 03022838     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.03.049     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Paulson D.F. Impact of radical prostatectomy in the management of clinically localized disease. J Urol 152 (1994) 1826-1830
2. Bostwick D.G. Gleason grading of prostatic needle biopsies. Correlation with grade in 316 matched prostatectomies. Am J Surg Pathol 18 (1994) 796-803
3. Cookson M.S., Fleshner N.E., Soloway S.M., and Fair W.R. Correlation between Gleason score of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen: accuracy and clinical implications. J Urol 157 (1997) 559-562
4. Steinberg D.M., Sauvageot J., Piantadosi S., and Epstein J.I. Correlation of prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason grade in academic and community settings. Am J Surg Pathol 21 (1997) 566-576
5. Djavan B., Kadesky K., Klopukh B., Marberger M., and Roehrborn C.G. Gleason scores from prostate biopsies obtained with 18-gauge biopsy needles poorly predict Gleason scores of radical prostatectomy specimens. Eur Urol 33 (1998) 261-270
6. King C.R. Patterns of prostate cancer biopsy grading: trends and clinical implications. Int J Cancer 90 (2000) 305-311
7. Grossfeld G.D., Chang J.J., Broering J.M., Li Y.P., Lubeck D.P., Flanders S.C., et al. Under staging and under grading in a contemporary series of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: results from the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor database. J Urol 165 (2001) 851-856
8. Gregori A., Vieweg J., Dahm P., and Paulson D.F. Comparison of ultrasound-guided biopsies and prostatectomy specimens: predictive accuracy of Gleason score and tumor site. Urol Int 66 (2001) 66-71
9. Narain V., Bianco Jr. F.J., Grignon D.J., Sakr W.A., Pontes J.E., and Wood Jr. D.P. How accurately does prostate biopsy Gleason score predict pathologic findings and disease free survival?. Prostate 49 (2001) 185-190
10. Lattouf J.B., and Saad F. Gleason score on biopsy: is it reliable for predicting the final grade on pathology?. BJU Int 90 (2002) 694-698
11. San Francisco I.F., DeWolf W.C., Rosen S., Upton M., and Olumi A.F. Extended prostate needle biopsy improves concordance of Gleason grading between prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy. J Urol 169 (2003) 136-140
12. Bott S.R., Freeman A.A., Stenning S., Cohen J., and Parkinson M.C. Radical prostatectomy: pathology findings in 1001 cases compared with other major series and over time. BJU Int 95 (2005) 34-39
13. Chun F.K., Briganti A., Shariat S.F., et al. Significant upgrading affects a third of men diagnosed with prostate cancer: predictive nomogram and internal validation. BJU Int 98 (2006) 329-334
14. Mian B.M., Lehr D.J., Moore C.K., et al. Role of prostate biopsy schemes in accurate prediction of Gleason scores. Urology 67 (2006) 379-383
15. Tomioka S., Nakatsu H., Suzuki N., Murakami S., Matsuzaki O., and Shimazaki J. Comparison of Gleason grade and score between preoperative biopsy and prostatectomy specimens in prostate cancer. Int J Urol 13 (2006) 555-559
16. Hull G.W., Rabbani F., Abbas F., Wheeler T.M., Kattan M.W., and Scardino P.T. Cancer control with radical prostatectomy alone in 1,000 consecutive patients. J Urol 167 (2002) 528-534
17. Han M., Partin A.W., Chan D.Y., and Walsh P.C. An evaluation of the decreasing incidence of positive surgical margins in a large retropubic prostatectomy series. J Urol 171 (2004) 23-26
18. Douglas T.H., McLeod D.G., Mostofi F.K., Mooneyhan R., Connelly R., Moul J.W., et al. Prostate-specific antigen-detected prostate cancer (stage T1c): an analysis of whole-mount prostatectomy specimens. Prostate 32 (1997) 59-64
19. May F., Treumann T., Dettmar P., Hartung R., and Breul J. Limited value of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasonography in the staging of clinically localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 87 (2001) 66-69
20. Freedland S.J., Kane C.J., Amling C.L., Aronson W.J., Presti Jr. J.C., Terris M.K., and SEARCH Database Study Group. Delay of radical prostatectomy and risk of biochemical progression in men with low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 175 (2006) 1298-1302
21. Carlson G.D., Calvanese C.B., Kahane H., and Epstein J.I. Accuracy of biopsy Gleason scores from a large uropathology laboratory: use of a diagnostic protocol to minimize observer variability. Urology 51 (1998) 525-529
22. Mosse C.A., Magi-Galluzzi C., Tsuzuki T., and Epstein J.I. The prognostic significance of tertiary Gleason pattern 5 in radical prostatectomy specimens. Am J Surg Pathol 28 (2004) 394-398
23. Epstein J.I. Gleason score 2-4 adenocarcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: a diagnosis that should not be made. Am J Surg Pathol 24 (2000) 477-478
24. Klotz L. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: for whom?. J Clin Oncol 23 (2005) 8165-8169