Prostate cancer in 2010: GSU: Misclassification or biological progression?

Nature Reviews Urology

Volumn 8, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 65-66

  Capitanio, Umberto ^a   Suardi, Nazareno ^a  

^a VITA SALUTE SAN RAFFAELE UNIVERSITY   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CANCER GROWTH; CLINICAL PRACTICE; GLEASON SCORE; GLEASON SUM UPGRADING; HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; REVIEW;

ANIMALS; DISEASE PROGRESSION; HUMANS; MALE; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX;

EID: 79951484414     PISSN: 17594812     EISSN: 17594820     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nrurol.2010.247     Document Type: Review

References (10)

1. Dall'era, M. A. et al. Surgical management after active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: pathological outcomes compared with men undergoing immediate treatment. BJU Int. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410.X.2010.09589.x.
2. Chun, F. K. et al. Development and internal validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of prostate cancer Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology. Eur. Urol. 49, 820-826 (2006).
3. Heidenreich, A. et al. EaU guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur. Urol. 59, 61-71 (2011).
4. Capitanio, U. et al. Biopsy core number represents one of foremost predictors of clinically significant gleason sum upgrading in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Urology 73, 1087-1091 (2009).
5. Van den Bergh, R. C. et al. Outcomes of men with screen-detected prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance who were managed expectantly. Eur. Urol. 55, 1-8 (2009).
6. Colleselli, D. et al. Upgrading of Gleason score 6 prostate cancers on biopsy after prostatectomy in the low and intermediate tPSa range. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 13, 182-185 (2010).
7. Tilki, D. et al. Clinical and pathologic predictors of Gleason sum upgrading in patients after radical prostatectomy: results from a single institution series. Urol. Oncol. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2009.07.003.
8. Moussa, A. S. et al. A nomogram for predicting upgrading in patients with low-and intermediate-grade prostate cancer in the era of extended prostate sampling. BJU Int. 105, 352-358 (2010).
9. Kulkarni, G. S. et al. Clinical predictors of Gleason score upgrading: implications for patient (Pubitemid 46906461)
10. Suardi, N. et al. Currently used criteria for active surveillance in men with low-risk prostate cancer: an analysis of pathologic features. Cancer 113, 2068-2072 (2008).