Gleason score 6 adenocarcinoma: Should it be labeled as cancer?

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Volumn 30, Issue 35, 2012, Pages 4294-4296

  Carter, H Ballentine ^a   Partin, Alan W ^a   Walsh, Patrick C ^a   Trock, Bruce J ^a   Veltri, Robert W ^a   Nelson, William G ^a   Singer, Eric A ^b   Epstein, Jonathan I ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

CANCER GRADING; CANCER INVASION; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CANCER SURVIVAL; CANCER THERAPY; CAUSE OF DEATH; FEAR; GLEASON SCORE; GROUPS BY AGE; HUMAN; LIFE EXPECTANCY; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL LIABILITY; NOTE; PATHOLOGIST; PATIENT COUNSELING; PATIENT MONITORING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE ADENOCARCINOMA; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; RECURRENCE FREE SURVIVAL; RISK REDUCTION; TUMOR BIOPSY;

EID: 84870733724     PISSN: 0732183X     EISSN: 15277755     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2012.44.0586     Document Type: Note

References (30)

1. Ganz PA, Barry JM, Burke W, et al: National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference: Role of Active Surveillance in the Management of Men With Localized Prostate Cancer. Ann Intern Med 156:591-595, 2012
2. Nickel JC, Speakman M: Should we really consider Gleason 6 prostate cancer? BJU Int 109:645, 2012
3. Chabner BA, Smith M: Call it cancer. Oncologist 17:149-150, 2012
4. 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 29:1228-1242, 2005 (Pubitemid 41232997)
5. Epstein JI: Gleason score 2-4 adenocarcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: A diagnosis that should not be made. Am J Surg Pathol 24:477-478, 2000
6. Dong F, Wang C, Farris AB, et al: Impact on the clinical outcome of prostate cancer by the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology modified Gleason grading system. Am J Surg Pathol 36:838-843, 2012
7. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Barrows GH, et al: Prostate cancer and the Will Rogers phenomenon. J Natl Cancer Inst 97:1248-1253, 2005 (Pubitemid 41535365)
8. Parker C, Muston D, Melia J, et al: A model of the natural history of screen-detected prostate cancer, and the effect of radical treatment on overall survival. Br J Cancer 94:1361-1368, 2006 (Pubitemid 43772267)
9. Stattin P, Holmberg E, Johansson JE, et al: Outcomes in localized prostate cancer: National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden follow-up study. J Natl Cancer Inst 102:950-958, 2010
10. Shappley WV 3rd, Kenfield SA, Kasperzyk JL, et al: Prospective study of determinants and outcomes of deferred treatment or watchful waiting among men with prostate cancer in a nationwide cohort. J Clin Oncol 27:4980-4985, 2009
11. Eggener SE, Scardino PT, Walsh PC, et al: Predicting 15-year prostate cancer specific mortality after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 185:869-875, 2011
12. Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Barry MJ, et al: The Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial: VA/NCI/AHRQ Cooperative Studies Program #407 (PIVOT) - Design and baseline results of a randomized controlled trial comparing radical prostatectomy to watchful waiting for men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Contemp Clin Trials 30:81-87, 2009
13. Mohler JL: The 2010 NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology on prostate cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 8:145, 2010
14. Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Carroll PR: Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 28:1117-1123, 2010
15. Jacobs BL, Zhang Y, Skolarus TA, et al: Growth of high-cost intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer raises concerns about overuse. Health Aff (Millwood) 31:750-759, 2012
16. Hamilton AS, Albertsen PC, Johnson TK, et al: Trends in the treatment of localized prostate cancer using supplemented cancer registry data. BJU Int 107:576-584, 2011
17. Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Kantoff PW, et al: Contemporary trends in low risk prostate cancer: Risk assessment and treatment. J Urol 178:S14-S19, 2007 (Pubitemid 47224952)
18. Raldow AC, Presley CJ, Yu JB, et al: The relationship between clinical benefit and receipt of curative therapy for prostate cancer. Arch Intern Med 172:362-363, 2012
19. Netto GJ, Cheng L: Emerging critical role of molecular testing in diagnostic genitourinary pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 136:372-390, 2012
20. Epstein JI, Feng Z, Trock BJ, et al: Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: Incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades. Eur Urol 61:1019-1024, 2012
21. Iremashvili V, Pelaez L, Manoharan M, et al: Pathologic prostate cancer characteristics in patients eligible for active surveillance: A head-to-head comparison of contemporary protocols. Eur Urol 62:462-468, 2012
22. Bul M, Zhu X, Rannikko A, et al: Radical prostatectomy for low-risk prostate cancer following initial active surveillance: Results from a prospective observational study. Eur Urol 62:195-200, 2012
23. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M, et al: Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 364:1708-1717, 2011
24. Sheridan TB, Carter HB, Wang W, et al: Change in prostate cancer grade over time in men followed expectantly for stage T1c disease. J Urol 179:901-904, 2008
25. Dunn IB, Kirk D: Legal pitfalls in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. BJU Int 86:304-307, 2000 (Pubitemid 30621236)
26. Miyamoto H, Hernandez DJ, Epstein JI: A pathological reassessment of organ-confined, Gleason score 6 prostatic adenocarcinomas that progress after radical prostatectomy. Hum Pathol 40:1693-1698, 2009
27. Burdick MJ, Reddy CA, Ulchaker J, et al: Comparison of biochemical relapse-free survival between primary Gleason score 3 and primary Gleason score 4 for biopsy Gleason score 7 prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 73:1439-1445, 2009
28. Kang DE, Fitzsimons NJ, Presti JC Jr, et al: Risk stratification of men with Gleason score 7 to 10 tumors by primary and secondary Gleason score: Results from the SEARCH database. Urology 70:277-282, 2007 (Pubitemid 47362247)
29. Makarov DV, Sanderson H, Partin AW, et al: 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 167:2440-2442, 2002 (Pubitemid 34533141)
30. Sabolch A, Feng FY, Daignault-Newton S, et al: Gleason pattern 5 is the greatest risk factor for clinical failure and death from prostate cancer after dose-escalated radiation therapy and hormonal ablation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 81:e351-e360, 2011