Predictors for clinically relevant Gleason score upgrade in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy

BJU International

Volumn 109, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 214-219

  Thomas, Christian ^a   Pfirrmann, Karin ^a   Pieles, Frauke ^a   Bogumil, Alexander ^a   Gillitzer, Rolf ^a   Wiesner, Christoph ^a   Thüroff, Joachim W ^a   Melchior, Sebastian W ^a,b  

^a JOHANNES GUTENBERG UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b KLINIKUM BREMEN MITTE   (Germany)

Author keywords

Gleason score; predictors; prostate biopsy; radical prostatectomy; upgrading

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER RISK; CANCER STAGING; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; GLEASON SCORE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT ASSESSMENT; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESS DEVELOPMENT; PROCESS OPTIMIZATION; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; VALIDATION PROCESS;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BIOPSY, NEEDLE; DISEASE PROGRESSION; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSTATE; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 84655176385     PISSN: 14644096     EISSN: 1464410X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10187.x     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts and Figures. Atlanta: American Cancer Society, 2009: 5-6
2. Gleason DF, Mellinger GT,. Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol 1974; 111: 58-64
3. Partin AW, Mangold LA, Lamm DM, Walsh PC, Epstein JI, Pearson JD,. Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium. Urology 2001; 58: 843-8 (Pubitemid 34017254)
4. King CR, Long JP,. Prostate biopsy grading errors: a sampling problem? Int J Cancer 2000; 90: 326-30 (Pubitemid 32049294)
5. Bostwick DG,. Gleason grading of prostatic needlebiopsies. Correlation with grade in 316 matched prostatectomies. Am J Surg Pathol 1994; 18: 796-803 (Pubitemid 24229402)
6. Garnett JE, Oyasu R, Grayhack JT,. The accuracy of diagnostic biopsy specimens in predicting tumor grades by Gleason's classification of radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 1983; 131: 690-3 (Pubitemid 14109619)
7. Kojima M, Troncoso P, Babaian RJ,. Use of prostate specific antigen and tumor volume in predicting needle biopsy grading error. Urology 1995; 45: 807-12
8. Cookson MS, Fleshner NE, Soloway SM, Fair RF,. Correlation between Gleason score of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen: accuracy and clinical implications. J Urol 1997; 157: 559-62 (Pubitemid 27026838)
9. Steinberg DM, Sauvageot BS, Piantadosi S, Epstein JI,. Correlation of prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason grade in academic and community settings. Am J Surg Pathol 1997; 21: 556-76
10. Paulson DF,. Impact of radical prostatectomy in the management of clinically localized disease. J Urol 1994; 152: 1826-30 (Pubitemid 24322639)
11. King CR,. Patterns of prostate cancer biopsy grading: trends and clinical implications. Radiat Oncol 2000; 90: 305-12
12. Thickman D, Speers WC, Philpott PJ, Sharpiro H,. Effect of the number of core biopsies of the prostate on predicting Gleason score of prostate cancer. J Urol 1996; 156: 110-3 (Pubitemid 26185651)
13. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Prostate Cancer. NCCN 2010. Available at:. Accessed October 4th 2010
14. Cohen MS, Hanley RS, Kurteva T, et al,. Comparing the Gleason Prostate Biopsy and Gleason Prostatectomy Grading System: The Lahey Clinic Medical Center Experience and an International Meta-Analysis. Eur Urol 2008; 54: 371-81
15. Cecchi M, Minvervini R, Sepich CA,. Correlation between Gleason score of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy tissue. Int Urol Nephrol 1998; 30: 575-80 (Pubitemid 29045675)
16. Fernandes ET, Sundaram CP, Long R, Soltani M, Ercole CJ,. Biopsy Gleason socre: how does it correlate with the final pathological diagnosis in prostate cancer? BJUI 1997; 79: 615-7
17. Moussa A, Li J, Soriano M, Klein E, Dong F, Jones S,. Prostate biopsy clinical and pathological variables that predict significant grading changes in patients with intermediate and high grade prostate cancer. BJU Int 2009; 103: 42-8
18. Heidenreich A, Aus G, Bolla M, et al,. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2008; 53: 68-80 (Pubitemid 350166735)
19. Thompson I, Thrasher JB, Aus G, et al,. Guideline for the Management of Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: 2007 Update. J Urol 2007; 177: 2106-31 (Pubitemid 46726449)
20. King CR, McNeal JE, Gill H, Presti JC,. Extended prostate biopsy scheme improves reliability of Gleason grading: implications for radiotherapy patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004; 59: 386-91 (Pubitemid 38622590)
21. Capitanio U, Karakiewicz P, Vallquette L, et al,. Biopsy core number represents one of foremost predictors of clinically significant gleason sum upgrading in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Urology 2009; 73: 1087-91
22. Elabbady AA, Kehdr MM,. Extended 12-core prostate biopsy increases both the detection of prostate cancer and the accuracy of Gleason score. Eur Urol 2006; 49: 49-53 (Pubitemid 41789953)
23. Coogan C, Latchamsetty K, Greenfield J, Corman J, Lynch B, Porter C,. Increasing the number of biopsy cores improves the concordance of biopsy Gleason score to prostatectomy Gleason score. BJU Int 2005; 96: 324-7 (Pubitemid 41097675)
24. Kassouf W, Nakanishi H, Ochiai A, Babaian K, Troncoso P, Babaian J,. Effect of prostate volume on tumor grade in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy in the era of extended prostate biopsies. J Urol 2007; 178: 111-4 (Pubitemid 46898463)
25. Freedland JS, Isaacs WB, Platz EA, et al,. Prostate size and risk of high-grade, advanced prostate cancer and biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy: a search database study. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 7546-54 (Pubitemid 46291818)
26. Hong S, Han B, Lee S, et al,. Prediction of Gleason score upgrading in low-risk prostate cancers via multi (≥12)-core prostate biopsy. World J Urol 2009; 27: 261-9
27. Gofrit ON, Yorn KC, Taxy JB,. Prediction the risk of patients with biopsy Gleason socre 6 to harbor a higher grade cancer. J Urol 2007; 178: 1925-8 (Pubitemid 47538623)
28. Dong F, Jones JS, Stephenson AJ, Magi-Galluzzi C, Reuther AM, Klein EA,. Prostate cancer volume at biopsy predicts clinically significant upgrading. J Urol 2008; 179: 896-900
29. Miam BM, Lehr DJ, Moore CK,. Role of prostate biopsy schemes in accurate prediction of Gleason scores. Urology 2006; 67: 379-83 (Pubitemid 43189860)
30. Allsbrook WC, Mangold KA, Johnson MH, Lane RB, Lane CG, Epstein JI,. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostateic carcinoma: general pathologist. Hum Pathol 2001; 32: 81-8 (Pubitemid 32150632)
31. Allsbrook WC, Mangold KA, Johnson MH,. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostateic carcinoma: urologic pathologist. Hum Pathol 2001; 32: 74-80 (Pubitemid 32150631)
32. Mikami Y, Manabe T, Epstein JI, et al,. Accuracy of gleason grading by practicing pathologists and the impact of education on improving agreement. Hum Pathol 2003; 34: 658-65 (Pubitemid 36875511)
33. Melia J, Moseley R, Ball R, Griffiths D, Grigor K, Harnden PAU,. K-based investigation of inter- and intra-observer reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic biopsies. Histopathology 2006; 48: 644-54
34. Griffiths D, Melia J, McWilliam L, Ball R, Grigor K, Harnden P,. A study of Gleason score interpretation in different groups of UK pathologists; techniques for improving reproducibility. Histopathology 2006; 48: 655-62