Gleason scoring: A comparison of classical and modified (International Society of Urological Pathology) criteria using nadir PSA as a clinical end point

Pathology

Volumn 42, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 339-343

  Delahunt, Brett ^a   Lamb, David S ^a   Srigley, John R ^a,c   Murray, Judy D ^a   Wilcox, Chantelle ^d   Samaratunga, Hemamali ^e   Atkinson, Christopher ^b   Spry, Nigel A ^f   Joseph, David ^f   Denham, James W ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO   (New Zealand)

^b CHRISTCHURCH HOSPITAL   (New Zealand)

^c MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE   (Australia)

^e Aquesta Pathology   (Australia)

^f SIR CHARLES GAIRDNER HOSPITAL   (Australia)

Author keywords

Adenocarcinoma; Gleason grade; International Society of Urological Pathology; Prostate; Prostate specific antigen

Indexed keywords

EID: 77952000070     PISSN: 00313025     EISSN: 14653931     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/00313021003787924     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Gleason DF. Classification of prostate carcinoma. Cancer Chemother Rep 1966;50:125-8.
2. 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;11:58-64.
3. Lamb DS, Slaney D, Smart R, et al. Prostate cancer: the new evidence base for diagnosis and treatment. Pathology 2007;39:537-544.
4. Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Lamb DS. Gleason grading: consensus and controversy. Pathology 2009;41:613-4.
5. Amin M, Boccon-Gibod L, Egevad L, et al. Prognostic and predictive factors and reporting of prostatic carcinoma in prostatic needle biopsy specimens. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2005;39:20-33.
6. Epstein JI, Alsbrook WC, Amin MB, et al. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005;29:1228-42.
7. 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.
8. Billis A, Guimaraes MS, Freitas LL, et al. The impact of the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology consensus conference on standard Gleason grading of prostate carcinoma in needle biopsies. J Urol 2008;180:548-53.
9. Kuroiwa K, Uchino H, Yokomizo A, Naito S. Impact of reporting rules of biopsy Gleason score for prostate cancer. J Clin Pathol 2009;62:260-3.
10. Helpap B, Egevad L. Correlation of modified Gleason grading of prostate cancer with age, serum prostate specific antigen and tumor extent in needle biopsy specimens. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 2008;30:133-8.
11. Naito S, Kuroiwa K, Kinukawa N, et al. Validation of Partin tables and development of a preoperative nomogram for Japanese patients with clinically localized prostate cancer using 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology consensus on Gleason grading: data from the Clinicopathological Research Group for Localized Prostate Cancer. J Urol 2008;180:904-10.
12. Haworth A, Kearvell R, Greer PB, et al. Assuring high quality treatment delivery in clinical trials - Results from the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group (TROG) study 03.04 'RADAR' set-up accuracy study. Radiotherapy Oncol 2009;90:299-306.
13. Lamb DS, Denham JW, Joseph D, et al. A comparison of the prognostic value of early PSA based variables following external beam radiotherapy, with or without preceding androgen deprivation: analysis of data from the TROG 96.01 randomized trial. Int J Radiation Oncology Biol Phys 2010; Mar. 27: (Epub ahead of print).
14. Delahunt B, Nacey JN. Renal cell carcinoma. Histological indicators of prognosis. Pathology 1987;19:258-63.
15. Harrell FE, Lee KL, Mark DB. Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med 1996;15:361-87.
16. Kunz GM Jr, Epstein JI. Should each core with prostate cancer be assigned a separate Gleason score? Hum Pathol 2003;34:911-4.
17. Crawford DE. Understanding the epidemiology, natural history, and key pathways involved in prostate cancer. Urology 2009;73(Suppl 5 A): 4-10.
18. Denham JW, Steigler A, Wilcox C, et al. Time to biochemical failure and prostate-specific antigen doubling time as surrogates for prostate cancer-specific mortality: evidence from the TROG 96.01 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2008;9:1058-68.