Risk of Gleason grade inaccuracies in prostate cancer patients eligible for active surveillance

Urology

Volumn 80, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 661-666

  Shapiro, Ronald H ^a   Johnstone, Peter A S ^a  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CANCER GRADING; CANCER RISK; CONTROLLED STUDY; GLEASON SCORE; HORMONAL THERAPY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; RISK ASSESSMENT;

HUMANS; MALE; NEOPLASM GRADING; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RISK;

EID: 84865511699     PISSN: 00904295     EISSN: 15279995     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2012.06.022     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Prostate cancer, national cancer comprehensive Network 2010
2. P.A. Johnstone, R. Riffenburgh, E.L. Saunders Grading inaccuracies in diagnostic biopsies revealing prostatic adenocarcinoma: implications for definitive radiation therapy Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 32 1995 479 482
3. P.A. Johnstone, P.J. Rossi, A.B. Jani "Insignificant" prostate cancer on biopsy: pathologic results from subsequent radical prostatectomy Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 10 2007 237 241
4. A.J. Brannan, P.A.S. Johnstone The role of tumor volume on outcome in prostate cancer after prostatectomy Br J Med Surg Urol 2 2009 233 237
5. R.K. Berglund, T.A. Masterson, K.C. Vora Pathological upgrading and up staging with immediate repeat biopsy in patients eligible for active surveillance J Urol 180 2008 1964 1967 [Discussion:1967-1968]
6. U. Capitanio, P.I. Karakiewicz, L. Valiquette Biopsy core number represents one of foremost predictors of clinically significant Gleason sum upgrading in patients with low-risk prostate cancer Urology 73 2009 1087 1091
7. S.L. Conti, M. Dall'Era, V. Fradet Pathological outcomes of candidates for active surveillance of prostate cancer J Urol 181 2009 1628 1633 [Discussion:1633-1634]
8. M.A. Dall'Era, J.E. Cowan, J. Simko Surgical management after active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: pathological outcomes compared with men undergoing immediate treatment BJU Int 107 8 2011 1232 1237
9. I.A. Hekal, N.A. El-Tabey, M.A. Nabeeh Validation of Epstein criteria of insignificant prostate cancer in Middle East patients Int Urol Nephrol 42 2010 667 671
10. G.S. Kulkarni, G. Lockwood, A. Evans Clinical predictors of Gleason score upgrading: implications for patients considering watchful waiting, active surveillance, or brachytherapy Cancer 109 2007 2432 2438
11. M.C. Lee, F. Dong, A.J. Stephenson The Epstein criteria predict for organ-confined but not insignificant disease and a high likelihood of cure at radical prostatectomy Eur Urol 58 2010 90 95
12. M. Louie-Johnsun, M. Neill, K. Treurnicht Final outcomes of patients with low-risk prostate cancer suitable for active surveillance but treated surgically BJU Int 104 2009 1501 1504
13. P. Mufarrij, A. Sankin, G. Godoy Pathologic outcomes of candidates for active surveillance undergoing radical prostatectomy Urology 76 2010 689 692
14. I.S. Oliveira, J. Pontes-Junior, D.K. Abe Undergrading and understaging in patients with clinically insignificant prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy Int Braz J Urol 36 2010 292 299
15. N. Suardi, A. Briganti, A. Gallina Testing the most stringent criteria for selection of candidates for active surveillance in patients with low-risk prostate cancer BJU Int 105 2010 1548 1552
16. S.E. Lee, D.S. Kim, W.K. Lee Application of the Epstein criteria for prediction of clinically insignificant prostate cancer in Korean men BJU Int 105 2010 1526 1530
17. C. Jeldres, N. Suardi, J. Walz Validation of the contemporary Epstein criteria for insignificant prostate cancer in European men Eur Urol 54 2008 1306 1313
18. J.I. Epstein, P.C. Walsh, M. Carmichael Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer JAMA 271 1994 368 374
19. H.B. Carter, J.I. Epstein Prediction of significant cancer in men with stage T1c adenocarcinoma of the prostate World J Urol 15 1997 359 363
20. F.K. Chun, N. Suardi, U. Capitanio Assessment of pathological prostate cancer characteristics in men with favorable biopsy features on predominantly sextant biopsy Eur Urol 55 2009 617 628 -6
21. C. Warlick, B.J. Trock, P. Landis Delayed versus immediate surgical intervention and prostate cancer outcome J Natl Cancer Inst 98 2006 355 357
22. R.C. van den Bergh, E.W. Steyerberg, A. Khatami Is delayed radical prostatectomy in men with low-risk screen-detected prostate cancer associated with a higher risk of unfavorable outcomes? Cancer 116 2010 1281 1290
23. L.M. Boccon-Gibod, N.B. de Longchamps, M. Toublanc Prostate saturation biopsy in the reevaluation of microfocal prostate cancer J Urol 176 2006 961 963 [Discussion:963-964]
24. P. Harnden, M.D. Shelley, B. Coles 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 8 2007 411 419
25. S.J. Freedland, C.J. Kane, C.L. Amling Upgrading and downgrading of prostate needle biopsy specimens: risk factors and clinical implications Urology 69 2007 495 499
26. M.R. Newton, S. Phillips, S.S. Chang Smaller prostate size predicts high grade prostate cancer at final pathology J Urol 184 2010 930 937
27. W. Kassouf, H. Nakanishi, A. Ochiai Effect of prostate volume on tumor grade in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy in the era of extended prostatic biopsies J Urol 178 2007 111 114
28. C.J. Kane, R. Im, C.L. Amling Outcomes after radical prostatectomy among men who are candidates for active surveillance: results from the SEARCH database Urology 76 2010 695 700
29. M.R. Cooperberg, P.R. Carroll, L. Klotz Active surveillance for prostate cancer: progress and promise J Clin Oncol 29 2011 3669 3676
30. A.W. Partin, L.A. Mangold, D.M. Lamm Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin tables) for the new millennium Urology 58 2001 843 848