Prostate cancer with tertiary gleason pattern 5 in prostate needle biopsy: Clinicopathologic findings and disease progression

American Journal of Surgical Pathology

Volumn 33, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 233-240

  Trpkov, Kiril ^a,d   Zhang, Jianguo ^b   Chan, Melissa ^a   Eigl, Bernhard J C ^c   Yilmaz, Asli ^a  

^a CALGARY LABORATORY SERVICES   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

^c TOM BAKER CANCER CENTRE   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Gleason grade 5; Gleason pattern 5; Gleason score; Prostate biopsy; Prostate cancer; Tertiary grade; Tertiary pattern

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER GROWTH; CANCER MORTALITY; CONTROLLED STUDY; FOLLOW UP; GLEASON SCORE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NEEDLE BIOPSY; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; BLOOD; DISEASE COURSE; KAPLAN MEIER METHOD; MORTALITY; PATHOLOGY; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATE TUMOR; TUMOR RECURRENCE;

AGED; BIOPSY, NEEDLE; DISEASE PROGRESSION; HUMANS; KAPLAN-MEIERS ESTIMATE; MALE; NEOPLASM RECURRENCE, LOCAL; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS;

EID: 60249091427     PISSN: 01475185     EISSN: 15320979     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e31817fb3bd     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Aihara M, Wheeler TM, Ohori M, et al. Heterogeneity of prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology. 1994;43:60-66.
2. Amin MB, Grignon DJ, Humphrey PA, et al. Reporting of prostate carcinoma by the Gleason system. In: Amin MB, Grignon DJ, Humphrey PA, et al, eds. Gleason Grading of Prostate Cancer: A Contemporary Approach. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2004:101-111.
3. Amin M, Boccon-Gibod L, Egevad L, et al. Prognostic and predictive factors and reporting of prostate carcinoma in prostate needle biopsy specimens. Scan J Urol Nephrol Suppl. 2005;216: 20-33.
4. Association of Directors of Anatomical and Surgical Pathology. Recommendations for reporting of resected prostate carcinomas. Am J Clin Pathol. 1996;105:667-670.
5. Cookson MS, Aus G, Burnett AL, et al. Variation in the definition of biochemical recurrence in patients treated for localized prostate cancer: the American Urological Association Prostate Guidelines for Localized Prostate Cancer Update Panel report and recommendations for a standard in the reporting of surgical outcomes. J Urol. 2007;177:540-545.
6. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC, Amin MB, et al, and the 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.
7. Epstein JI, Srigley J, Grignon D, et al. Recommendations for the reporting of prostate carcinoma. Hum Pathol. 2007;38:1308-1310.
8. Epstein JI, Yang XJ. Grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma. In: Epstein JI, Yang XJ, eds. Prostate Biopsy Interpretation. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2002:154-176.
9. Gleason DF. Classification of prostatic carcinoma. Cancer Chemother Rep. 1966;50:125-128.
10. Gleason DF. Histological grading of prostatic carcinoma. In: Bostwick DG, ed. Pathology of the Prostate. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1990:83-93.
11. Gleason DF. Histologic grading of prostate cancer: a perspective. Hum Pathol. 1992;23:273-279.
12. Gleason DF; and the Veterans Administration Cooperative Urological Research Group. Histologic grading and clinical staging of prostate carcinoma. In: Tannenbaum M, ed. Urologic Pathology: The Prostate. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger; 1977:177-197.
13. Gleason DF, Mellinger GT; and the Veterans Administration Cooperative Urological Research Group. Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol. 1974;111:58-64.
14. Hattab EM, Koch MO, Eble JN, et al. Tertiary Gleason pattern 5 is a powerful predictor of biochemical relapse in patients with Gleason score 7 prostatic adenocarcinoma. J Urol. 2006;175:1695-1699.
15. Kattan MW, Zelefsky MJ, Kupelian PA, et al. Pretreatment nomogram that predicts 5-year probability of metastasis following three dimensional conformal radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:4568-4571.
16. McGovan DG, Bain GO, Hanson J. Evaluation of histological grading (Gleason) in carcinomas of the prostate: Adverse influence of highest grade. Prostate. 1983;4:111-118.
17. Mellinger GT, Gleason D, Bailar J III. The histology and prognosis of prostatic cancer. J Urol. 1967;97:331-337.
18. Montironi R, Navarrete RV, Lopez-Beltran A, et al. Histopathology reporting of prostate needle biopsies. 2005 update. Virchows Arch. 2006;449:1-13.
19. Mosse CA, Magi-Galluzzi C, Tsuzuki T, et al. The prognostic significance of tertiary Gleason pattern 5 in radical prostatectomy specimens. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004;28:394-398.
20. Nakanishi H, Wang X, Ochai A, et al. A nomogram for predicting low-volume/low grade prostate cancer: a tool in selecting patients for active surveillance. Cancer. 2007;110:2441-2447.
21. Pan CC, Potter SR, Partin AW, et al. 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. 2000;24:563-569.
22. Partin AW, Mangold LA, Lamm DM, et al. Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin tables) for the new millennium. Urology. 2001;58:843-848.
23. Patel AA, Chen M-H, Renshaw AA, et al. PSA failure following definitive treatment of prostate cancer having biopsy Gleason score 7 with tertiary grade 5. JAMA. 2007; 298:1533-1538.
24. Rasiah KS, Stricker PD, Haynes A-M, et al. Prognostic significance of Gleason pattern in patients with Gleason score 7 prostate carcinoma. Cancer. 2003;98:2560-2565.
25. Ruijter ET, van da Kaa CA, Schalken JA, et al. Histological grade heterogeneity in multifocal prostate cancer. Biological and clinical implications. J Pathol. 1996;180:295-299.
26. Sim HG, Telesca D, Culp SH, et al. Tertiary Gleason pattern 5 in Gleason 7 prostate cancer predicts pathological parameters and biochemical recurrence. [Abstract.] J Urol. 2007;174(suppl):157-158.
27. Srigley JR, Amin MB, Bostwick DG, et al. Updated protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with carcinoma of the prostate gland: A basis for checklist. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000; 124:1034-1039.
28. Srigley JR, Kapusta LR, Leung CS, et al. Gleason grading in a contemporary needle biopsy series: prevalence of primary, secondary and tertiary grades in minimal and non-minimal adenocarcino-ma. [Abstract]. Mod Pathol. 2004;17(suppl 1):178A-179A.
29. Srigley JR, Amin MB, Epstein JI, et al. Updated protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with carcinoma of the prostate gland. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2006;130:936-946.
30. Trpkov K, Warman L. Use of digital maps and sampling of radical prostatectomy specimens. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2006;130: 1751-1752.
31. Trpkov K, Chan M, Kmet L, et al. Significance of tertiary Gleason grade 5 on needle biopsy. [Abstract]. Mod Pathol. 2007;20(suppl 2): 180A-181A.
32. van Oort IM, Schout BM, Kiemeney LA, et al. Does the tertiary Gleason pattern influence the PSA progression-free interval after retropubic radical prostatectomy for organ confined prostate cancer? Eur Urol. 2005;48:572-576.