Well-differentiated prostate cancer in core biopsy specimens may be associated with extraprostatic disease

Sao Paulo Medical Journal

Volumn 126, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 119-122

  Cury, José ^a   Coelho, Rafael Ferreira ^a,b   Srougi, Miguel ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SÃO PAULO   (Brazil)

^b Cardeal Arcoverde 201 apt 143   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Pathology; Prostate; Prostate cance; Prostatic neoplasms; Surgical

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BLADDER NECK; CANCER INVASION; CANCER LOCALIZATION; CANCER STAGING; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE ASSOCIATION; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL RECORD REVIEW; NEEDLE BIOPSY; PREDICTION; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SEMINAL VESICLE; TUMOR DIFFERENTIATION;

EID: 48949086196     PISSN: 15163180     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1590/s1516-31802008000200010     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Murphy GP, Whitmore WF Jr. A report of the workshops on the current status of the histologic grading of prostate cancer. Cancer. 1979;44(4):1490-4
2. Murphy GP, Busch C, Abrahamsson PA, et al. Histopathology of localized prostate cancer. Consensus Conference on Diagnosis and Prognostic Parameters in Localized Prostate Cancer. Stockholm, Sweden, May 12-13, 1993. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl. 1994;162:7-42; discussion 115-27.
3. D'Amico AV, Desjardin A, Chung A, et al. Assessment of outcome prediction models for patients with localized prostate carcinoma managed with radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy. Cancer. 1998;82(10):1887-96.
4. Olumi AF, Richie JP, Schultz DJ, D'Amico AV. Calculated volume of prostate cancer identifies patients with clinical stage T1C disease at high risk biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: a preliminary study. Urology. 2000;56(2):273-7.
5. Egevad L, Norlén BJ, Norberg M. The value of multiple core biopsies for predicting the Gleason score of prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2001;88(7):716-21
6. Fleshner NE, Cookson MS, Soloway SM, Fair WR. Repeat transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: a strategy to improve the reliability of needle biopsy grading in patients with well-differentiated prostate cancer. Urology. 1998;52(4):659-62.
7. Epstein JI. Gleason score 2-4 adenocarcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: a diagnosis that should not be made. Am J Surg Pathol. 2000;24(4):477-8.
8. Cury J, Srougi M, Leite KRM, Lopes LHC, Carneiro PC. Correlação entre a graduação histológica de biṕsias e do espécimen cirúrgico em câncer da próstata. [Correlation between histologic biopsy grading and radical prostatectomy specimen in prostate cancer]. Rev Col Bras Cir. 1999;26(1):21-5.
9. Thickman D, Speers WC, Philpott PJ, Shapiro H. Effect of the number of core biopsies of the prostate on predicting Gleason score of prostate cancer. J Urol. 1996;156(1):110-3.
10. Garnett JE, Oyasu R, Grayhack JT. The accuracy of diagnostic biopsy specimens in predicting tumor grades by Gleason's classification of radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol. 1984;131(4):690-3.
11. Cookson MS, Fleshner NE, Soloway SM, Fair WR. Correlation between Gleason score of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen: accuracy and clinical implications. J Urol. 1997;157(2):559-62.
12. Bostwick DG. Gleason grading of prostatic needle biopsies. Correlation with grade in 316 matched prostatectomies. Am J Surg Pathol. 1994;18(8):796-803.
13. Danziger M, Shevchuk M, Antonescu C, Matthews GJ, Fracchia JA. Predictive accuracy of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: correlations to matched prostatectomy specimens. Urology. 1997;49(6):863-7.
14. Paulson DF. Impact of radical prostatectomy in the management of clinical localized disease. J Urol. 1994;152(5 Pt 2):1826-30.
15. 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(5):364-70.
16. Mills SE, Fowler JE Jr. Gleason histologic grading of prostatic carcinoma. Correlations between biopsy and prostatectomy specimens. Cancer. 1986;57(2):346-9.
17. Spires SE, Cibull ML, Wood DP Jr, Miller S, Spires SM, Banks ER. Gleason histologic grading in prostatic carcinoma. Correlation of 18-gauge core biopsy with prostatectomy. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1994;118(7):705-8.
18. 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(5):566-76.
19. Carlson GD, Calvanese CB, Kahane H, Epstein JI. Accuracy of biopsy Gleason scores from a large uropathology laboratory: use of a diagnostic protocol to minimize observer variability. Urology. 1998;51(4):525-9.
20. Eble JN, Sauter G, Epstein JI, Sesterhenn IA. WHO Classification of tumours: pathology and genetics of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs. Lyon: IARC Press; 2004.
21. Poulos CK, Daggy JK, Cheng L. Preoperative prediction of Gleason grade in radical prostatectomy specimens: the influence of different Gleason grades from multiple positive biopsy sites. Mod Pathol. 2005;18(2):228-34.
22. 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(1):81-8.
23. de las Morenas A, Siroky MB, Merriam J, Stilmant MM. Prostatic adenocarcinoma: reproducibility and correlation with clinical stages of four grading systems. Hum Pathol. 1988;19(5):595-7.
24. Ruijter E, van Leenders G, Miller G, Debruyne F, van de Kaa C. Errors in histological grading by prostatic needle biopsy specimens: frequency and predisposing factors. J Pathol. 2000;192(2):229-33.
25. di Loreto C, Fitzpatrick B, Underhill S, et al. Correlation between visual clues, objective architectural features, and interobserver agreement in prostate cancer. Am J Clin Pathol. 1991;96(1):70-5.
26. 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(4):222-5.
27. Kronz JD, Silberman MA, Allsbrook WC, Epstein JI. A web-based tutorial improves practicing pathologists' Gleason grading of images of prostate carcinoma specimens obtained by needle biopsy: validation of a new medical education paradigm. Cancer. 2000;89(8):1818-23.
28. Partin AW, Kattan MW, Subong EN, et al. Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update. JAMA. 1997;277(18):1445-51.
29. Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Stapleton AM, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT. A preoperative nomogram for disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90(10):766-71.
30. San Francisco IF, Regan MM, Olumi AF, DeWolf WC. Percent of cores positive for cancer is a better preoperative predictor of cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy than prostate specific antigen. J Urol. 2004;171(4):1492-9.