Gleason score 3+4=7 prostate cancer with minimal quantity of gleason pattern 4 on needle biopsy is associated with low-risk tumor in radical prostatectomy specimen

American Journal of Surgical Pathology

Volumn 38, Issue 8, 2014, Pages 1096-1101

  Huang, Cheng Cheng ^a   Kong, Max Xiangtian ^a   Zhou, Ming ^a,b   Rosenkrantz, Andrew B ^b   Taneja, Samir S ^b   Melamed, Jonathan ^a   Deng, Fang Ming ^a  

^a NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b NEW YORK UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

biopsy; Gleason pattern 4; modified Gleason grading; Prostate cancer; radical prostatectomy

Indexed keywords

ADENOCARCINOMA; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER GRADING; HUMAN; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; NEEDLE BIOPSY; PATHOLOGY; PROSTATE TUMOR; PROSTATECTOMY; REPRODUCIBILITY; RISK FACTOR;

ADENOCARCINOMA; ADULT; AGED; BIOPSY, NEEDLE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RISK FACTORS;

EID: 84904560565     PISSN: 01475185     EISSN: 15320979     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000235     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. 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.
2. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, et al. Update on the Gleason grading system for prostate cancer: results of an international consensus conference of urologic pathologists. Adv Anat Pathol. 2006;13:57-59.
3. Fine SW, Amin MB, Berney DM, et al. A contemporary update on pathology reporting for prostate cancer: biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Eur Urol. 2012;62:20-39.
4. Helpap B, Egevad L. The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Virchows Arch. 2006;449:622-627.
5. Gleason DF. Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother Rep. 1966;50:125-128.
6. Rasiah KK, Stricker PD, Haynes AM, et al. Prognostic significance of Gleason pattern in patients with Gleason score 7 prostate carcinoma. Cancer. 2003;98:2560-2565.
7. Grossfeld GD, Latini DM, Lubeck DP, et al. Predicting recurrence after radical prostatectomy for patients with high risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2003;169:157-163.
8. D'Amico AV, Chen MH, Renshaw AA, et al. Risk of prostate cancer recurrence in men treated with radiation alone or in conjunction with combined or less than combined androgen suppression therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:2979-2983.
9. 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.
10. 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. 2012;61:1019-1024.
11. 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. 2012;36:838-843.
12. Zareba P, Zhang J, Yilmaz A, et al. The impact of the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus on Gleason grading in contemporary practice. Histopathology. 2009; 55:384-391.
13. Berney DM, Wheeler TM, Grignon DJ, et al. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 4: seminal vesicles and lymph nodes. Mod Pathol. 2011;24:39-47.
14. van der Kwast TH, Amin MB, Billis A, et al. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 2: T2 substaging and prostate cancer volume. Mod Pathol. 2011;24: 16-25.
15. Magi-Galluzzi C, Evans AJ, Delahunt B, et al. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 3: extraprostatic extension, lymphovascular invasion and locally advanced disease. Mod Pathol. 2011;24:26-38.
16. Wise AM, Stamey TA, McNeal JE, et al. Morphologic and clinical significance of multifocal prostate cancers in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology. 2002;60:264-269.
17. Cheng L, Jones TD, Pan CX, et al. Anatomic distribution and pathologic characterization of small-volume prostate cancer (<0.5 mL) in whole-mount prostatectomy specimens Mod Pathol 2005 18 1022-1026.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. Stark JR, Perner S, Stampfer MJ, et al. Gleason score and lethal prostate cancer: does 3+4=4+3? J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:3459-3464.
21. 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. 2002;167:2440-2442.
22. Amin A, Partin A, Epstein JI. Gleason score 7 prostate cancer on needle biopsy: relation of primary pattern 3 or 4 to pathological stage and progression after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2011; 186:1286-1290.
23. Reese AC, Cowan JE, Brajtbord JS, et al. The quantitative Gleason score improves prostate cancer risk assessment. Cancer. 2012; 118:6046-6054.
24. Egevad L, Ahmad AS, Algaba F, et al. Standardization of Gleason grading among 337 European pathologists. Histopathology. 2013; 62:247-256.
25. 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;186:465-469.