Nationwide prevalence of lymph node metastases in Gleason score 3+3=6 prostate cancer

Pathology

Volumn 46, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 306-310

  Liu, Jen Jane ^a   Lichtensztajn, Daphne Y ^b   Gomez, Scarlett Lin ^b   Sieh, Weiva ^c   Chung, Benjamin I ^a   Cheng, Iona ^b   Brooks, James D ^a  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b CANCER PREVENTION INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Gleason score; Lymph node metastasis; Prostatic neoplasms; SEER program

Indexed keywords

ADENOCARCINOMA; ADULT; AGED; CANCER GRADING; CANCER REGISTRY; EPIDEMIOLOGY; HUMAN; LYMPH NODE METASTASIS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; PREVALENCE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; UNITED STATES;

ADENOCARCINOMA; ADULT; AGED; HUMANS; LYMPHATIC METASTASIS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; PREVALENCE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; SEER PROGRAM; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84902191107     PISSN: 00313025     EISSN: 14653931     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/PAT.0000000000000097     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Bailar JC, Mellinger GT, Gleason DF. Survival rates of patients with prostatic cancer, tumor stage, and differentiation-preliminary report. Cancer Chemother Rep 1966;50:129-36.
2. Gleason DF. Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother Rep 1966;50:125-8.
3. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC, 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.
4. Ross HM, Kryvenko ON, Cowan JE, et al. Do adenocarcinomas of the prostate with Gleason score (GS) β6 have the potential to metastasize to lymph nodes? Am J Surg Pathol 2012;36:1346-52.
5. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program. SEERStat Database: Incidence - SEER 18 Regs Research Data + Hurricane Katrina Impacted Louisiana Cases, Nov. 2012 Sub (1973-2010 varying). Linked To County Attributes - Total US, 1969-2011 Counties, National Cancer Institute, DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program, Surveillance Systems Branch, released April 2013, based on the November 2012 submission. www.seer.cancer.gov
6. Birkhahn M, Penson DF, Cai J, et al. Long-term outcome in patients with a Gleason score β6 prostate cancer treated by radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2011;108:660-4.
7. Ganz PA, Barry JM, Burke W, et al. NIH State-of-the-Science Conference Statement: Role of active surveillance in the management of men with localized prostate cancer. NIH Consensus and State-of-the-Science Statements 2011;28:1-27.
8. Esserman LJ, Thompson IM, Reid B. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment in cancer: an opportunity for improvement. JAMA 2013;310:797-8.
9. Gleason DF, Mellinger GT. Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol 1974;111:58-64.
10. Allsbrook WC, Mangold KA, Johnson MH, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: urologic pathologists. Hum Pathol 2001;32:74-80.
11. McNeal JE, Villers AA, Redwine EA, et al. Histologic differentiation, cancer volume, and pelvic lymph node metastasis in adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Cancer 1990;66:1225-33.
12. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Barrows GH, et al. Prostate cancer and the Will Rogers phenomenon. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:1248-53.
13. Klotz L, Zhang L, Lam A, et al. Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:126-31.
14. Carter HB, Walsh PC, Landis P, et al. Expectant management of nonpalpable prostate cancer with curative intent: preliminary results. J Urol 2002;167:1231-4.
15. King CR, McNeal JE, Gill H, et al. Reliability of small amounts of cancer in prostate biopsies to reveal pathologic grade. Urology 2006;67:1229-34.
16. Cooperberg M, Simko J, Falzarano S, et al. Development and validation of the biopsy-based genomic prostate score (GPS) as a predictor of high grade or extracapsular prostate cancer to improve patient selection for active surveillance. J Urol 2013;189:e873.
17. Brooks JD, Tibshirani R, Ferrari M, et al. The impact of tumor volume on outcomes after radical prostatectomy: implications for prostate cancer screening. Open Prostate Cancer J 2008;1:1-8.
18. Mullins JK, Feng Z, Trock BJ, et al. The impact of anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy on cancer control: the 30-year anniversary. J Urol 2012;188:2219-24.
19. Brimo F, Schultz L, Epstein JI. The value of mandatory second opinion pathology review of prostate needle biopsy interpretation before radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2010;184:126-30.
20. McKenney JK, Simko J, Bonham M, et al. The potential impact of reproducibility of Gleason grading in men with early stage prostate cancer managed by active surveillance: a multi-institutional study. J Urol 2011;186:465-9.