Pathological correlation between needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen in patients with localized prostate cancer

Journal of the Canadian Urological Association

Volumn 1, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 264-266

  Bulbul, Muhammad A ^a   El Hout, Yaser ^a   Haddad, Maurice ^b   Tawil, Ayman ^c   Houjaij, Ali ^a   Diab, Nizar Bou ^a   Darwish, Oussama ^a  

^a Division of Urology   (Lebanon)

^b Department of Diagnostic Radiology ^*  (Lebanon)

^c AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF BEIRUT   (Lebanon)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 76749148776     PISSN: 19116470     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. German R, Thompson T, Stewart S, et al. Distribution of male genital system cancers (MGSC), United States - 1999-2001. Ann Epidemiol2005;15:633-634.
2. Kronz JD, Milord R, Wilentz R, et al. Lesions missed on prostate biopsies in cases sent in for consultation. Prostate 2003;54:310-314.
3. Djavan B, Mazal P, Zlotta A, et al. Pathological features of prostate cancer detected on initial and repeat prostate biopsy: results of the prospective European Prostate Cancer Detection Study. Prostate 2001;47:111-117.
4. Montie JE. Current prognostic factors for prostate carcinoma. Cancer 1996;78:341-344.
5. Hutter RVP, Montie JE, Busch C, et al. Workgroup 3. Current prognostic factors and their relevance to staging. Cancer 1996;78:369-371.
6. Epstein JI. The diagnosis and reporting of adenocarcinoma of the prostate in core needle biopsy specimens. Cancer 1996;78:350-356.
7. Gonzalgo ML, Bastian P, Mangold L, et al. Relationship between primary Gleason pattern on needle biopsy and clinicopathologic outcomes among men with Gleason score 7 adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Urology 2006;67:115-119.
8. Catalona W, Stein A, Fair W. Grading errors in prostatic needle biopsies: relation to the accuracy of predicting lymph node metastasis. J Urol1982;127:919-927.
9. Spires SE, Cibull ML, Wood DP, et al. Gleason histologic grading in prostatic carcinoma. Correlation of 18-gauge core biopsy with prostatectomy. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1994; 118:705-708.
10. Narayan P, Gajendran V, Taylor S, et al. The role of transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy-based staging, preoperative serum prostate-specific antigen, and biopsy Gleason score in prediction of final pathologic diagnosis in prostate cancer. Urology 1995;46:205-212.
11. Kojima M, Troncoso P, Babaian RJ. Use of prostate-specific antigen and tumor volume in predicting needle biopsy grading error. Urology 1995;45:807-812.
12. Littrup PJ, Bailey SE. Prostate cancer: the role of ultrasound and its impact on cancer detection and management. Radiol Clin North Am 2000;38:87-113.
13. Partin AW, Stutzman RE. Elevated prostate-specific antigen, abnormal prostate evaluation on digital rectal examination and transrectal ultrasound and prostate biopsy. Urol Clin North Am 1998;25:581-589.
14. Mian B, Lehr D, Moore C, et al. Role of prostate biopsy schemes in accurate prediction of Gleason scores. Urology 2006;67:379-383
15. Cooner WH. Prostate cancer detection in a clinical urologic practice by ultrasonography, digital rectal examination and prostate-specific antigen. J Urol 1990;143:1146-1152.
16. Wingo PA, Tong T, Bolden S. Cancer statistics 1995. CA Cancer J Clin 1995;45:8-30.
17. Andrén O, Fall K, Franzén L, et al. How well does the Gleason score predict prostate cancer death? A 20-year follow-up of a population based cohort in Sweden. J Urol 2006;175:1337-1340.
18. Landis SH, Murray T, Bolden S, et al. Cancer statistics 1998. CA cancer J Clin 1998;48: 6-29.
19. Gleason DF. Undergrading of prostate cancer biopsies: a paradox inherent in all biologic bivariate distributions. Urology 1996;47:289-291.
20. Allsbrook W Jr, Mangold K, Johnson M, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: general pathologist. Hum Pathol 2001;32:81-88.
21. Thickman D, Speers WC, Philpott PJ, et al. Effect of the number of core biopsies of the prostate on predicting Gleason score of prostate cancer. J Urol 1996;156:110-113.
22. Cookson MS, Fleshner NE, Soloway SM, et al. Correlation between Gleason score of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen: accuracy and clinical implications. J Urol 1997;157:559-562.
23. King CR, Long JP. Prostate biopsy errors: a sampling problem? Int J Cancer 2000;90: 326-330.
24. Gleason DF. Histologic grading of prostate cancer: a perspective. Hum Pathol 1992;23:273-279.
25. Eichler K, Hempel S, Wilby J, et al. Diagnostic value of systematic biopsy methods in the investigation of prostate cancer: a systematic review. J Urol 2006;175:1605-1612.
26. Buyyounouski M, Horwitz E, Hanlon A, et al. Positive prostate biopsy laterality and implications for staging. Urology 2003;62:298-303.
27. Gregori A, Vieweg J, Dahm P, et al. Comparison of ultrasound-guided biopsies and prostatectomy specimens: predictive accuracy of Gleason score and tumor site. Urol Int 2001; 66:66-71.
28. King CR. Patterns of prostate cancer biopsy grading: trends and clinical implications. Int J Cancer 2000;90:305-311.
29. Bostwick DG. Gleason grading of prostate needle biopsies: correlation with grade in 316 matched prostatectomies. Am J Surg Pathol 1994;18:796-803.
30. Steinberg DM, Sauvegeot BS, Piantadosi S, et al. Correlation of prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason grade in academic and community settings. Am J Surg Pathol 1997;21:566-576.
31. Stricker HJ, Ruddock LJ, Wan J, et al. Detection of non-palpable prostate cancer: a mathematical and laboratory model. Br J Urol 1993;71:43-46.
32. Bostwick D, Meiers I. Prostate biopsy and optimization of cancer yield. Eur Urol 2006;49:415-417.
33. Carlson GD, Calvanese CB, Kahane H, et al. Accuracy of biopsy Gleason scores from a large uropathology laboratory: use of a diagnostic protocol to minimize observer variability. Urology 1998;51:525-529.