Epstein criteria for insignificant prostate cancer

BJU International

Volumn 108, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 518-525

  Oon, Sheng F ^a   Watson, R William ^a   O'Leary, John J ^b   Fitzpatrick, John M ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN   (Ireland)

^b TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN   (Ireland)

^c MATER MISERICORDIAE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Ireland)

Author keywords

epstein criteria; gleason score; insignificant prostate cancer; prostate cancer

Indexed keywords

CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CANCER PATIENT; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL; EPSTEIN CRITERIA; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; REVIEW; VALIDATION PROCESS;

HUMANS; MALE; NOMOGRAMS; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; TUMOR BURDEN;

EID: 79961021607     PISSN: 14644096     EISSN: 1464410X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.09979.x     Document Type: Review

References (43)

1. Oliver SE, May MT, Gunnell D,. International trends in prostate-cancer mortality in the 'PSA ERA'. Int J Cancer 2001; 92: 893-8 (Pubitemid 32467381)
2. Helgesen F, Holmberg L, Johansson JE, Bergström R, Adami HO,. Trends in prostate cancer survival in Sweden, 1960 through 1988: evidence of increasing diagnosis of nonlethal tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996; 88: 1216-21 (Pubitemid 26302035)
3. Albertsen PC, Fryback DG, Storer BE, Kolon TF, Fine J,. Long-term survival among men with conservatively treated localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1995; 274: 626-31
4. Rullis I, Schaeffer JA, Lilien OM,. Incidence of prostatic carcinoma in the elderly. Urology 1975; 6: 295-7
5. Ilic D, O'Connor D, Green S, Wilt T,. Screening for prostate cancer: a Cochrane systematic review. Cancer Causes Control 2007; 18: 279-85 (Pubitemid 46356208)
6. Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Barry MJ, et al,. The Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial: VA/NCI/AHRQ Cooperative Studies Program ®407 (PIVOT): design and baseline results of a randomized controlled trial comparing radical prostatectomy to watchful waiting for men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Contemp Clin Trials 2009; 30: 81-7
7. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al,. ERSPC Investigators. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 1320-8
8. Postma R, Schröder FH, van Leenders GJ, et al,. Cancer detection and cancer characteristics in the The European Randomized Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC)-Section Rotterdam. A comparison of two rounds of screening. Eur Urol 2007; 52: 89-97 (Pubitemid 46803013)
9. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, Brendler CB,. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 1994; 271: 368-74 (Pubitemid 24037911)
10. Epstein JI, Pizov G, Walsh PC,. Correlation of pathologic findings with progression following radical retropubic prostatectomy. Cancer 1993; 71: 3582-93 (Pubitemid 23152669)
11. Epstein JI, Carmichael M, Partin AW, Walsh PC,. Is tumor volume an independent predictor of progression following radical prostatectomy? A multivariate analysis of 185 clinical stage B adenocarcinomas of the prostate with five years follow-up. J Urol 1993; 149: 1478-81 (Pubitemid 23164549)
12. Stamey TA, Freiha FS, McNeal JE, Redwine EA, Whittemore AS, Schmid HP,. Localized prostate cancer. Relationship of tumor volume to clinical significance for treatment of prostate cancer. Cancer 1993; 71: 933-8 (Pubitemid 23049614)
13. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC, Amin MB, Egevad L, 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: 1228-42 (Pubitemid 41232997)
14. Helpap B, Egevad L,. Modified Gleason Grading. An updated review. Histol Histopathol 2009; 24: 661-6
15. Gleason DF,. Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother Rep 1966; 50: 125-8
16. 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 (Pubitemid 44832632)
17. Helpap B, Egevad L,. [The value of the modified Gleason grading system of prostatic carcinoma in routine urological diagnostics]. Urologe A 2007; 46: 59-62 (Pubitemid 46159391)
18. Helpap B, Egevad L,. [Clinical insignificance of prostate cancer, are there morphological findings]. Urologe A 2009; 48: 170-4
19. Montironi R, Cheng L, Lopez-Beltran A, et al,. Original Gleason system versus 2005 ISUP modified Gleason system: the importance of indicating which system is used in the patient's pathology and clinical reports. Eur Urol 2010; 58: 369-73
20. Epstein JI,. An update of the Gleason grading system. J Urol 2010; 183: 433-40
21. Bastian PJ, Mangold LA, Epstein JI, Partin AW,. Characteristics of insignificant clinical T1c prostate tumors. A contemporary analysis. Cancer 2004; 101: 2001-5 (Pubitemid 39425375)
22. Jeldres C, Suardi N, Walz J, et al,. Validation of the contemporary epstein criteria for insignificant prostate cancer in European men. Eur Urol 2008; 54: 1306-13
23. Louie-Johnsun M, Neill M, Treurnicht K, Jarmulowicz M, Eden C,. Final outcomes of patients with low-risk prostate cancer suitable for active surveillance but treated surgically. BJU Int 2009; 104: 1501-4
24. Hekal IA, El-Tabey NA, Nabeeh MA, et al,. Validation of Epstein criteria of insignificant prostate cancer in Middle East patients. Int Urol Nephrol 2010; 42: 667-71
25. Lee SE, Kim DS, Lee WK, et al,. Application of the Epstein criteria for prediction of clinically insignificant prostate cancer in Korean men. BJU Int 2010; 105: 1526-30
26. Lee MC, Dong F, Stephenson AJ, Jones JS, Magi-Galluzzi C, Klein EA,. The Epstein Criteria predict for organ-confined but not insignificant disease and a high likelihood of cure at Radical Prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2010; 58: 90-5
27. De la Taille A, Antiphon P, Salomon L, et al,. Prospective evaluation of a 21-sample needle biopsy procedure to designed to improve the prostate cancer detection rate. Urology 2003; 61: 1181-6 (Pubitemid 36693999)
28. Makhlouf AA, Krupski TL, Kunkle D, Theodorescu D,. The effect of sampling more cores on the predictive accuracy of pathological grade and tumor distribution in the prostate biopsy. BJU Int 2004; 93: 271-4 (Pubitemid 38253568)
29. Nelson WG, DeMarzo AM, Isaacs WB,. Prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2003; 349: 366-81 (Pubitemid 36886244)
30. Helpap B, Egevad L,. Correlation of modified Gleason grading with pT stage of prostatic carcinoma after radical prostatectomy. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 2008; 30: 1-7 (Pubitemid 351312094)
31. Wright JL, Salinas CA, Lin DW, et al,. Prostate cancer specific mortality and Gleason 7 disease differences in prostate cancer outcomes between cases with Gleason 4 + 3 and Gleason 3 + 4 tumors in a population based cohort. J Urol 2009; 182: 2702-7
32. Isbarn H, Wanner M, Salomon G, et al,. Long-term data on the survival of patients with prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy in the prostate-specific antigen era. BJU Int 2010; 106: 37-43
33. Stark JR, Perner S, Stampfer MJ, et al,. Gleason score and lethal prostate cancer: does 3 + 4 = 4 + 3? J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 3459-64
34. Klotz L, Zhang L, Lam A, Nam R, Mamedov A, Loblaw A,. Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 126-1
35. Isbarn H, Karakiewicz PI, Ahyai SA, et al,. Differences in histopathological and biochemical outcomes in patients with low Gleason score prostate cancer. BJU Int 2010; 105: 818-23
36. Chan TY, Partin AW, Walsh PC, Epstein JI,. Prognostic significance of Gleason Score 3+4 versus Gleason Score 4+3 tumor at radical prostatectomy. Urology 2000; 56: 823-7
37. Lau WK, Blute ML, Bostwick DG, Weaver AL, Sebo TJ, Zincke H,. Prognostic factors for survival of patients with pathological Gleason score 7 prostate cancer: differences in outcome between 3 and 4. J Urol 2001; 166: 1692-7
38. Khoddami SM, Shariat SF, Lotan Y, et al,. Predictive value of primary Gleason pattern 4 in patients with Gleason score 7 tumours treated with radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2004; 94: 42-6 (Pubitemid 38980306)
39. Han M, Snow PB, Epstein JI, et al,. A neural network predicts progression for men with gleason score 3+4 versus 4+3 tumors after radical prostatectomy. Urology 2000; 56: 994-9
40. Tollefson MK, Leibovich BC, Slezak JM, Zincke H, Blute ML,. Long-term prognostic significance of primary Gleason pattern in patients with Gleason score 7 prostate cancer: impact on prostate cancer specific survival. J Urol 2006; 175: 547-51 (Pubitemid 43067350)
41. Rasiah KK, Stricker PD, Haynes AM, et al,. Prognostic significance of Gleason pattern in patients with Gleason score 7 prostate carcinoma. Cancer 2003; 98: 2560-5 (Pubitemid 37509518)
42. Kang DE, Fitzsimons NJ, Presti JC Jr, et al,. SEARCH Database Study Group. Risk stratification of men with Gleason score 7 to 10 tumors by primary and secondary Gleason Score: results from the SEARCH Database. Urology 2007; 70: 277-82 (Pubitemid 47362247)
43. Burdick MJ, Reddy CA, Ulchaker J, et al,. Comparison of biochemical relapse-free survival between primary Gleason score 3 and primary Gleason score 4 for biopsy Gleason score 7 prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009; 73: 1439-45