Identification of gleason pattern 5 on prostatic needle core biopsy: Frequency of underdiagnosis and relation to morphology

American Journal of Surgical Pathology

Volumn 35, Issue 11, 2011, Pages 1706-1711

  Fajardo, Daniel A ^a   Miyamoto, Hiroshi ^a   Miller, Jeremy S ^a   Lee, Thomas K ^a   Epstein, Jonathan I ^a  

^a DEPARTMENT OF PATHOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Gleason grade; Gleason score; needle biopsy; prostate; radical prostatectomy

Indexed keywords

ADENOCARCINOMA; ARTICLE; CANCER GRADING; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; HUMAN; MALE; NEEDLE BIOPSY; PATHOLOGY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PROSTATE TUMOR; UNITED STATES;

ADENOCARCINOMA; BALTIMORE; BIOPSY, NEEDLE; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; HUMANS; MALE; NEOPLASM GRADING; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS;

EID: 80054988370     PISSN: 01475185     EISSN: 15320979     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e318228571d     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Allsbrook WC Jr Mangold KA, Johnson MH, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: urologic pathologists. Hum Pathol. 2001;32:74-80. (Pubitemid 32150631)
2. Allsbrook WC Jr, Mangold KA, Johnson MH, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: general pathologist. Hum Pathol. 2001;32:81-88. (Pubitemid 32150632)
3. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, 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;29:1228-1242.
4. Epstein JI, Trock BJ, Pierorazio PM. Upgrading/downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictive factors. J Urol (submitted).
5. Glaessgen A, Hamberg H, Pihl CG, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of percent Gleason grade 4/5 in prostate biopsies. J Urol. 2004;171:664-667. (Pubitemid 38090452)
6. Mosse CA, Magi-Galluzzi C, Tsuzuki T, et al. The prognostic significance of tertiary Gleason pattern 5 in radical prostatectomy specimens. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004;28:394-398. (Pubitemid 38269575)
7. Noguchi M, Stamey TA, McNeal JE, et al. Relationship between systematic biopsies and histological features of 222 radical prostatectomy specimens: lack of prediction of tumor significance for men with nonpalpable prostate cancer. J Urol. 2001;166: 104-109. Discussion 109-110. (Pubitemid 32565354)
8. Pierorazio PM, Walsh PC, Partin AW, et al. Suggested new nomenclature for Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. J Urol. In press.
9. Rubin MA, Mucci NR, Manley S, et al. Predictors of Gleason pattern 4/5 prostate cancer on prostatectomy specimens: can high grade tumor be predicted preoperatively? J Urol. 2001;165:114-118.
10. Trock BJ, Guo CC, Gonzalgo ML, et al. Tertiary Gleason patterns and biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy: proposal for a modified Gleason scoring system. J Urol. 2009;182:1364-1370.
11. Trpkov K, Zhang J, Chan M, et al. Prostate cancer with tertiary Gleason pattern 5 in prostate needle biopsy: clinicopathologic findings and disease progression. Am J Surg Pathol. 2009;33: 233-240.
12. Yang XJ, Lecksell K, Potter SR, et al. Significance of small foci of Gleason score 7 or greater prostate cancer on needle biopsy. Urology. 1999;54:528-532. (Pubitemid 29407033)