Concordance between Gleason scores of needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens: A population-based study

BJU International

Volumn 103, Issue 12, 2009, Pages 1647-1654

  Kvåle, Rune ^a   Møller, Bjørn ^a   Wahlqvist, Rolf ^b   Fosså, Sophie D ^d   Berner, Aasmund ^d   Busch, Christer ^e   Kyrdalen, Anne E ^a   Svindland, Aud ^c   Viset, Trond ^f   Halvorsen, Ole J ^g  

^a CANCER REGISTRY OF NORWAY   (Norway)

^b Oslo Urological University Clinic   (Norway)

^c AKER UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

^d UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^e UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OF NORTH NORWAY   (Norway)

^f TRONDHEIM UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

^g HAUKELAND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

Author keywords

Biopsy; Gleason score; Prostate specific antigen; Prostatectomy

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER REGISTRY; CLINICAL FEATURE; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NEEDLE BIOPSY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY;

AGED; BIOPSY, NEEDLE; EPIDEMIOLOGIC METHODS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM STAGING; NORWAY; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATE; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS;

EID: 67149126604     PISSN: 14644096     EISSN: 1464410X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.08255.x     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Fine J. 20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 2005 293 : 2095 101
2. Bostwick DG. Gleason grading of prostatic needle biopsies. Correlation with grade in 316 matched prostatectomies. Am J Surg Pathol 1994 18 : 796 803 (Pubitemid 24229402)
3. King CR. Patterns of prostate cancer biopsy grading: trends and clinical implications. Int J Cancer 2000 90 : 305 11
4. 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 84
5. D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB et al. A multivariate analysis of clinical and pathological factors that predict for prostate specific antigen failure after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 1995 154 : 131 8
6. Klotz L. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: for whom? J Clin Oncol 2005 23 : 8165 9
7. Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, de Vries SH et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancers detected in three subsequent rounds of a screening trial: characteristics, PSA doubling times, and outcome. Eur Urol 2007 51 : 1244 50
8. Harvei S, Tretli S, Langmark F. Quality of prostate cancer data in the cancer registry of Norway. Eur J Cancer 1996 32A : 104 10
9. Bostwick DG, Montironi R. Evaluating radical prostatectomy specimens: therapeutic and prognostic importance. Virchows Arch 1997 430 : 1 16 (Pubitemid 27073300)
10. Altman DG, ed. Practical Statistics for Medical Research, Chapter 14. London : Chapman & Hall-CRC, 1999 : 404
11. 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 34
12. Mian BM, Lehr DJ, Moore CK et al. Role of prostate biopsy schemes in accurate prediction of Gleason scores. Urology 2006 67 : 379 83
13. 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 : 566 76
14. San Francisco IF, DeWolf WC, Rosen S, Upton M, Olumi AF. Extended prostate needle biopsy improves concordance of Gleason grading between prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2003 169 : 136 40
15. Fine SW, Epstein JI. A contemporary study correlating prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason score. J Urol 2008 179 : 1335 8
16. 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 6
17. Allsbrook WC Mangold KA, Johnson MH et al. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: urologic pathologists. Hum Pathol 2001 32 : 74 80 (Pubitemid 32150631)
18. Allsbrook WC 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 8
19. Coogan CL, Latchamsetty KC, Greenfield J, Corman JM, Lynch B, Porter CR. Increasing the number of biopsy cores improves the concordance of biopsy Gleason score to prostatectomy Gleason score. BJU Int 2005 96 : 324 7
20. Muntener M, Epstein JI, Hernandez DJ et al. Prognostic significance of Gleason score discrepancies between needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2008 53 : 767 75
21. Egevad L. Reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostate cancer can be improved by the use of reference images. Urology 2001 57 : 291 5
22. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Amin MB, Egevad LL. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005 29 : 1228 42
23. Berner A, Busch C, Halvorsen OJ et al. Web-training Set for Gleason Grading. Available at: http://www.norcyt.org/prostata/PROST.htm. Accessed April 2008
24. Billis A, Guimaraes MS, Freitas LL, Meirelles L, Magna LA, Ferreira U. The impact of the 2005 international society of urological pathology consensus conference on standard Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in needle biopsies. J Urol 2008 180 : 548 52
25. Helpap B, Egevad L. The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Virchows Arch 2006 449 : 622 7
26. Khan MA, Mangold LA, Epstein JI, Boitnott JK, Walsh PC, Partin AW. Impact of surgical delay on long-term cancer control for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2004 172 : 1835 9
27. Sheridan TB, Carter HB, Wang W, Landis PB, Epstein JI. Change in prostate cancer grade over time in men followed expectantly for stage T1c disease. J Urol 2008 179 : 901 4
28. Draisma G, Postma R, Schroder FH, van der Kwast TH, de Koning HJ. Gleason score, age and screening: modeling dedifferentiation in prostate cancer. Int J Cancer 2006 119 : 2366 71
29. Kvåle R, Auvinen A, Adami HO et al. Interpreting trends in prostate cancer incidence and mortality in the five Nordic countries. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007 99 : 1881 7