Downgrading of biopsy based gleason score in prostatectomy specimens

Journal of Clinical Pathology

Volumn 67, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 313-318

  Treurniet, Kilian M ^a   Trudel, Dominique ^b,c   Sykes, Jenna ^d   Evans, Andrew J ^c   Finelli, Antonio ^d   Van Der Kwast, Theodorus H ^c  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITÉ LAVAL   (Canada)

^c TORONTO GENERAL HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY HEALTH NETWORK   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANCER; DIAGNOSTICS; GENITOURINARY PATHOLOGY; PROSTATE;

BIOPSY; HUMANS; MALE; NEOPLASM GRADING; OBSERVER VARIATION; ONTARIO; PROSTATE; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; TERTIARY CARE CENTERS;

EID: 84898797229     PISSN: 00219746     EISSN: 14724146     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jclinpath-2012-201323     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Gleason DF. Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother Rep1966;50:125-8.
2. 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;29:1228-42.
3. Egevad L, Mazzucchelli R, Montironi R. Implications of the International Society of Urological Pathology modified Gleason grading system. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2012;136:426-34.
4. Helpap B, Egevad L. The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Virchows Arch 2006;449:622-7.
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;180:548-53.
6. Müntener M, Epstein JI, Hernandeze DJ, et al. Prognostic significance of Gleason grade discrepancies between needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2008;53:767-76.
7. Freedland SJ, Kane CJ, Amling CL, et al. Upgrading and downgrading of prostate needle biopsies: risk factors and clinical implications. Urology 2007;69:495-9.
8. Moussa A, Li J, Soriano M, et al. Prostate biopsy clinical and pathological variables that predict significant grading changes in patients with intermediate and high grade prostate cancer. BJU Int 2009;103:43-8.
9. Epstein J, 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. Eur Urol 2012;61:1019-24.
10. Rajinikanth A, Manoharan M, Soloway CT, et al. Trends in Gleason score: concordance between biopsy and prostatectomy over 15 years. Urology 2008;72:177-82.
11. Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR, Klotz L. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: progress and promise. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:3669-76.
12. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression. New York: Wiley, 2000.
13. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmicheal M, et al. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 1994;271:368-74.
14. Iczkowski KA, Lucia MS. Current perspectives on Gleason grading of prostate cancer. Curr Urol Rep 2011;12:216-22.
15. Samaratunga H, Montironi R, True L, et al. ISUP Prostate Cancer Group. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 1: specimen handling. Mod Pathol 2011;24:6-15.
16. 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;24:563-9.
17. Trock BJ, Guo CC, Gonzalgo ML, et al. Tertiary Gleason patterns and biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy: proposal for a modified Gleason scoring system. J Urol 2009;182:1364-70.
18. Servoll E, Saeter T, Vlatkovic L, et al. Impact of a tertiary Gleason pattern 4 or 5 on clinical failure and mortality after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 2012;109:1489-94.
19. Isbarn H, Ahyai SA, Chun FK, et al. Prevalence of a tertiary Gleason grade and its impact on adverse histopathologic parameters in a contemporary radical prostatectomy series. Eur Urol 2009;55:394-401.
20. Vis AN, Roemeling S, Kranse R, et al. Should we replace the Gleason score with the amount of high-grade prostate cancer? Eur Urol 2007;51: 931-9.
21. Egevad L, Algaba F, Berney DM, et al. Interactive digital slides with heat maps: a novel method to improve the reproducibility of Gleason grading. Virchows Arch2011;459:175-82