Do adenocarcinomas of the prostate with gleason score (GS)≤6 have the potential to metastasize to lymph nodes?

American Journal of Surgical Pathology

Volumn 36, Issue 9, 2012, Pages 1346-1352

  Ross, Hillary M ^a   Kryvenko, Oleksandr N ^b   Cowan, Janet E ^c   Simko, Jeffry P ^c   Wheeler, Thomas M ^d   Epstein, Jonathan I ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b HENRY FORD HOSPITAL   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Gleason score; lymph node metastases; radical prostatectomy

Indexed keywords

ADENOCARCINOMA; CANCER GRADING; DISEASE COURSE; HUMAN; LYMPH NODE; LYMPH NODE METASTASIS; MALE; METASTASIS; PATHOLOGY; PROSTATE TUMOR; PROSTATECTOMY; REVIEW;

ADENOCARCINOMA; DISEASE PROGRESSION; HUMANS; LYMPH NODES; LYMPHATIC METASTASIS; MALE; NEOPLASM GRADING; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84865475578     PISSN: 01475185     EISSN: 15320979     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e3182556dcd     Document Type: Review

References (35)

1. Abdollah F, Schmitges J, Sun M, et al. Head-to-head comparison of three commonly used preoperative tools for prediction of lymph node invasion at radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2011;78: 1363-1367.
2. Allaf ME, Palapattu GS, Trock BJ, et al. Anatomical extent of lymph node dissection: impact on men with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2004;172:1840-1844. (Pubitemid 39363069)
3. Amin MB, Schultz DS, Zarbo RJ. Analysis of cribriform morphology in prostatic neoplasia using antibody to high-molecular-weight cytokeratins. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1994;118: 260-264. (Pubitemid 24093651)
4. Berney DM, Fisher G, Kattan MW, et al. Major shifts in the treatment and prognosis of prostate cancer due to changes in pathological diagnosis and grading. BJU Int. 2007;100: 1240-1244.
5. Billis A, Guimaraes MS, Freitas LL, et al. The impact of the 2005 international society of urological pathology consensus conference on standard Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in needle biopsies. J Urol. 2008;180:548-552; discussion 552-553.
6. Birkhahn M, Penson DF, Cai J, et al. Long-term outcome in patients with a Gleason score r6 prostate cancer treated by radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2011;108:660-664.
7. Boorjian SA, Thompson RH, Siddiqui S, et al. Long-term outcome after radical prostatectomy for patients with lymph node positive prostate cancer in the prostate specific antigen era. J Urol. 2007;178:864-870; discussion 870-871.
8. Delahunt B, Lamb DS, Srigley JR, et al. Gleason scoring: a comparison of classical and modified (international society of urological pathology) criteria using nadir PSA as a clinical end point. Pathology. 2010;42:339-343.
9. 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. (Pubitemid 41232997)
10. Gleason DF. Histologic grading of prostate cancer: a perspective. Hum Pathol. 1992;23:273-279.
11. Goldberg SI, Niemierko A, Turchin A. Analysis of data errors in clinical research databases. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2008;6:242-246.
12. Harnden P, Shelley MD, Coles B, et al. Should the Gleason grading system for prostate cancer be modified to account for high-grade tertiary components? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8:411-419. (Pubitemid 46621769)
13. Hattab EM, Koch MO, Eble JN, et al. Tertiary Gleason pattern 5 is a powerful predictor of biochemical relapse in patients with Gleason score 7 prostatic adenocarcinoma. J Urol. 2006;175:1695-1699; discussion 1699.
14. Helpap B, Egevad L. The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Virchows Arch. 2006;449:622-627. (Pubitemid 44832632)
15. Hernandez DJ, Nielsen ME, Han M, et al. Natural history of pathologically organ-confined (pT2), Gleason score 6 or less, prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2008;72:172-176.
16. Iczkowski KA, Torkko KC, Kotnis GR, et al. Digital quantification of five high-grade prostate cancer patterns, including the cribriform pattern, and their association with adverse outcome. Am J Clin Pathol. 2011;136:98-107.
17. Kuroiwa K, Uchino H, Yokomizo A, et al. Impact of reporting rules of biopsy Gleason score for prostate cancer. J Clin Pathol. 2009;62:260-263.
18. Latour M, Amin MB, Billis A, et al. Grading of invasive cribriform carcinoma on prostate needle biopsy: an interobserver study among experts in genitourinary pathology. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008;32: 1532-1539.
19. Lotan TL, Epstein JI. Gleason grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma with glomeruloid features on needle biopsy. Hum Pathol. 2009;40: 471-477.
20. Makarov DV, Trock BJ, Humphreys EB, et al. 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. 2007;69:1095-1101. (Pubitemid 46891611)
21. Miyamoto H, Hernandez DJ, Epstein JI. A pathological reassessment of organ-confined, Gleason score 6 prostatic adenocarcinomas that progress after radical prostatectomy. Hum Pathol. 2009;40: 1693-1698.
22. 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)
23. Ozok HU, Sagnak L, Tuygun C, et al. Will the modification of the Gleason grading system affect the urology practice? Int J Surg Pathol. 2010;18:248-254.
24. Pan CC, Potter SR, Partin AW, et al. The prognostic significance of tertiary Gleason patterns of higher grade in radical prostatectomy specimens: a proposal to modify the Gleason grading system. Am J Surg Pathol. 2000;24:563-569. (Pubitemid 30180750)
25. Robinson BD, Epstein JI. Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate without invasive carcinoma on needle biopsy: emphasis on radical prostatectomy findings. J Urol. 2010;184:1328-1333.
26. Schumacher MC, Burkhard FC, Thalmann GN, et al. Is pelvic lymph node dissection necessary in patients with a serum PSA (Pubitemid 44038073)
27. Servoll E, Saeter T, Vlatkovic L, et al. Does a tertiary Gleason pattern 4 or 5 influence the risk of biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer? Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2010;44:217-222.
28. Sim HG, Telesca D, Culp SH, et al. Tertiary Gleason pattern 5 in Gleason 7 prostate cancer predicts pathological stage and biochemical recurrence. J Urol. 2008;179:1775-1779.
29. Tsivian M, Sun L, Mouraviev V, et al. Changes in Gleason score grading and their effect in predicting outcome after radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2009;74:1090-1093.
30. Turker P, Bas E, Bozkurt S, et al. Presence of high grade tertiary Gleason pattern upgrades the Gleason sum score and is inversely associated with biochemical recurrence-free survival. Urol Oncol. 2011. [Epub ahead of print].
31. Uemura H, Hoshino K, Sasaki T, et al. Usefulness of the 2005 International Society of Urologic Pathology Gleason grading system in prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. BJU Int. 2009;103:1190-1194.
32. van Oort IM, Schout BM, Kiemeney LA, et al. Does the tertiary Gleason pattern influence the PSA progression-free interval after retropubic radical prostatectomy for organ-confined prostate cancer? Eur Urol. 2005;48:572-576. (Pubitemid 41278581)
33. von Bodman C, Godoy G, Chade DC, et al. Predicting biochemical recurrence-free survival for patients with positive pelvic lymph nodes at radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2010;184: 143-148.
34. Weckermann D, Goppelt M, Dorn R, et al. Incidence of positive pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer, a prostatespecific antigen (PSA) level of r10 ng/mL and biopsy Gleason score of r6, and their influence on PSA progression-free survival after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2006;97:1173-1178. (Pubitemid 43907316)
35. Whittemore DE, Hick EJ, Carter MR, et al. Significance of tertiary Gleason pattern 5 in Gleason score 7 radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol. 2008;179:516-522; discussion 522.