Should we abstain from Gleason score 2-4 in the diagnosis of prostate cancer? Results of a German multicentre study

World Journal of Urology

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 97-103

  Brookman May, Sabine ^a   May, Matthias ^b   Wieland, Wolf Ferdinand ^a   Lebentrau, Steffen ^c   Gunia, Sven ^d   Koch, Stefan ^d   Gilfrich, Christian ^b   Roigas, Jan ^e   Hoschke, Bernd ^f   Burger, Maximilian ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF REGENSBURG   (Germany)

^b Urologische Klinik   (Germany)

^c Ruppiner Kliniken GmbH   (Germany)

^d Helios Klinik   (Germany)

^e Pathologisches Institut   (Germany)

^f CARL THIEM KLINIKUM   (Germany)

Author keywords

Concordance; Gleason score 2 4; Prognosis; Prostate cancer; Prostatectomy

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BIOPSY; BLOOD; CANCER GRADING; CLINICAL TRIAL; DISEASE FREE SURVIVAL; GERMANY; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; PATHOLOGY; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATE; PROSTATE TUMOR; PROSTATECTOMY;

ADULT; AGED; BIOPSY; DISEASE-FREE SURVIVAL; GERMANY; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATE; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84856214020     PISSN: 07244983     EISSN: 14338726     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00345-010-0632-5     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Moussa AS, Kattan MW, Berglund R, Yu C, Fareed K, Jones JS (2010) A nomogram for predicting upgrading in patients with low-and intermediate-grade prostate cancer in the era of extended prostate sampling. BJU Int 105(3): 352-358.
2. Makarov DV, Trock BJ, Humphreys EB, Mangold LA, Walsh PC, Epstein JI, Partin AW (2007) Updated nomogram to predict pathologic stage of prostate cancer given prostate-specific antigen level, clinical stage, and biopsy Gleason score (Partin tables) based on cases from 2000 to 2005. Urology 69(6): 1095-1101.
3. Stephenson AJ, Scardino PT, Eastham JA, Bianco FJ Jr, Dotan ZA, Fearn PA, Kattan MW (2006) Preoperative nomogram predicting the 10-year probability of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst 98(10): 715-717.
4. Cooperberg MR, Pasta DJ, Elkin EP, Litwin MS, Latini DM, Du Chane J, Carroll PR (2005) The University of California, San Francisco Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score: a straightforward and reliable preoperative predictor of disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 173(6): 1938-1942.
5. Crippa A, Srougi M, Dall'Oglio MF, Antunes AA, Leite KR, Nesrallah LJ, Ortiz V (2006) A new nomogram to predict pathologic outcome following radical prostatectomy. Int Braz J Urol 32(2): 155-164.
6. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL; ISUP Grading Committee (2005) The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 29(9): 1228-1242 (Review).
7. May M, Siegsmund M, Hammermann F, Loy V, Gunia S (2007) Visual estimation of the tumor volume in prostate cancer: a useful means for predicting biochemical-free survival after radical prostatectomy? Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 10(1): 66-71.
8. May M, Kaufmann O, Hammermann F, Loy V, Siegsmund M (2007) Prognostic impact of lymphovascular invasion in radical prostatectomy specimens. BJU Int 99(3): 539-544.
9. Gleason DF (1992) Histologic grading of prostate cancer: a perspective. Hum Pathol 23(3): 273-279 (Review).
10. Wittekind CH, Meyer HJ, Bootz F (Hrsg.) (2002) TNM Klassifikation maligner Tumoren. 6. Auflage. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.
11. Adolfsson J (2008) Watchful waiting and active surveillance: the current position. BJU Int 102(1): 10-14.
12. Suardi N, Briganti A, Gallina A, Salonia A, Karakiewicz PI, Capitanio U, Freschi M, Cestari A, Guazzoni G, Rigatti P, Montorsi F (2009) Testing the most stringent criteria for selection of candidates for active surveillance in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int [Epub ahead of print].
13. Mian BM, Lehr DJ, Moore CK, Fisher HA, Kaufman RP Jr, Ross JS, Jennings TA, Nazeer T (2006) Role of prostate biopsy schemes in accurate prediction of Gleason scores. Urology 67(2): 379-383.
14. Sengupta S, Slezak JM, Blute ML, Leibovich BC, Sebo TJ, Myers RP, Cheville JC, Bergstralh EJ, Zincke H (2006) Trends in distribution and prognostic significance of Gleason grades on radical retropubic prostatectomy specimens between 1989 and 2001. Cancer 106(12): 2630-2635.
15. Melia J, Moseley R, Ball RY, Griffiths DF, Grigor K, Harnden P, Jarmulowicz M, McWilliam LJ, Montironi R, Waller M, Moss S, Parkinson MC (2006) A UK-based investigation of inter-and intra-observer reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic biopsies. Histopathology 48(6): 644-654.
16. Kvåle R, Møller B, Wahlqvist R, Fosså SD, Berner A, Busch C, Kyrdalen AE, Svindland A, Viset T, Halvorsen OJ (2009) Concordance between Gleason scores of needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens: a population-based study. BJU Int 103(12): 1647-1654.
17. San Francisco IF, DeWolf WC, Rosen S, Upton M, Olumi AF (2003) Extended prostate needle biopsy improves concordance of Gleason grading between prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy. J Urol 169(1): 136-140.
18. Stark JR, Perner S, Stampfer MJ, Sinnott JA, Finn S, Eisenstein AS, Ma J, Fiorentino M, Kurth T, Loda M, Giovannucci EL, Rubin MA, Mucci LA (2009) Gleason score and lethal prostate cancer: does 3 + 4 = 4 + 3? J Clin Oncol 27(21): 3459-3464.
19. Makarov DV, Sanderson H, Partin AW, Epstein JI (2002) Gleason Score 7 prostate cancer on needle biopsy: is the prognostic difference in Gleason scores 4 + 3 and 3 + 4 independent of the number of involved cores? J Urol 167(6): 2440-2442.
20. Hong SK, Han BK, Lee ST, Kim SS, Min KE, Jeong SJ, Jeong H, Byun SS, Lee HJ, Choe G, Lee SE (2009) Prediction of Gleason score upgrading in low-risk prostate cancers diagnosed via multi (> or = 12)-core prostate biopsy. World J Urol 27(2): 271-276.
21. Uemura H, Hoshino K, Sasaki T, Miyoshi Y, Ishiguro H, Inayama Y, Kubota Y (2009) Usefulness of the 2005 International Society of Urologic Pathology Gleason grading system in prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. BJU Int 103(9): 1190-1194.
22. Helpap B, Egevad L (2006) The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Virchows Arch 449(6): 622-627.
23. Billis A, Guimaraes MS, Freitas LL, Meirelles L, Magna LA, Ferreira U (2008) The impact of the 2005 international society of urological pathology consensus conference on standard Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in needle biopsies. J Urol 180(2): 548-552 (discussion 552-553).
24. Moussa AS, Li J, Soriano M, Klein EA, Dong F, Jones JS (2009) Prostate biopsy clinical and pathological variables that predict significant grading changes in patients with intermediate and high grade prostate cancer. BJU Int 103(1): 43-48.
25. Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Stapleton AM, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT (1998) A preoperative nomogram for disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 90(10): 766-771.
26. D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Weinstein M, Tomaszewski JE, Schultz D, Rhude M, Rocha S, Wein A, Richie JP (2001) Predicting prostate specific antigen outcome preoperatively in the prostate specific antigen era. J Urol 166(6): 2185-2188.
27. Zareba P, Zhang J, Yilmaz A, Trpkov K (2009) The impact of ISUP 2005 consensus on Gleason grading in contemporary practice. Histopathology 55(4): 384-391.