Gleason inflation 1998-2011: A registry study of 97 168 men

BJU International

Volumn 115, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 248-255

  Danneman, Daniela ^a   Drevin, Linda ^b   Robinson, David ^c   Stattin, Pär ^d   Egevad, Lars ^a  

^a KAROLINSKA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^b UPPSALA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^c RYHOV COUNTY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^d UMEÅ UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Gleason grade; needle biopsy; pathology; prostate cancer

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

CANCER REGISTRY; CANCER STAGING; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; REVIEW; SWEDEN; TREND STUDY; BLOOD; CANCER GRADING; EPIDEMIOLOGY; HEALTH SURVEY; MORTALITY; PATHOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATE TUMOR; PROSTATECTOMY; REGISTER; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; TUMOR RECURRENCE; WATCHFUL WAITING;

HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; NEOPLASM GRADING; NEOPLASM RECURRENCE, LOCAL; NEOPLASM STAGING; POPULATION SURVEILLANCE; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REGISTRIES; SWEDEN; WATCHFUL WAITING;

EID: 84921480826     PISSN: 14644096     EISSN: 1464410X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/bju.12671     Document Type: Review

References (37)

1. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Gleason DF, Barry MJ,. Competing risk analysis of men aged 55 to 74 years at diagnosis managed conservatively for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998; 280: 975-980
2. Delahunt B, Miller RJ, Srigley JR, Evans AJ, Samaratunga H,. Gleason grading: past, present and future. Histopathology 2012; 60: 75-86
3. Gleason DF,. Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother Rep 1966; 50: 125-128
4. Pierorazio PM, Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI,. Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int 2013; 111: 753-760
5. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad L,. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005; 29: 1228-1242
6. Egevad L, Allsbrook WC Jr, Epstein JI,. Current practice of Gleason grading among genitourinary pathologists. Hum Pathol 2005; 36: 5-9
7. Epstein JI,. An update of the Gleason grading system. J Urol 2010; 183: 433-440
8. Brimo F, Montironi R, Egevad L, et al. Contemporary grading for prostate cancer: implications for patient care. Eur Urol 2013; 63: 892-901
9. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Barrows GH, et al. Prostate cancer and the Will Rogers phenomenon. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97: 1248-1253
10. Ghani KR, Grigor K, Tulloch DN, Bollina PR, McNeill SA,. Trends in reporting Gleason score 1991 to 2001: changes in the pathologist's practice. Eur Urol 2005; 47: 196-201
11. Gilliland FD, Gleason DF, Hunt WC, Stone N, Harlan LC, Key CR,. Trends in Gleason score for prostate cancer diagnosed between 1983 and 1993. J Urol 2001; 165: 846-850
12. Smith EB, Frierson HF Jr, Mills SE, Boyd JC, Theodorescu D,. Gleason scores of prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens over the past 10 years: is there evidence for systematic upgrading? Cancer 2002; 94: 2282-2287
13. Zareba P, Zhang J, Yilmaz A, Trpkov K,. The impact of the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus on Gleason grading in contemporary practice. Histopathology 2009; 55: 384-391
14. Billis A, Guimaraes MS, Freitas LL, Meirelles L, Magna LA, Ferreira U,. 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: 548-553
15. 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
16. Kuroiwa K, Uchino H, Yokomizo A, Naito S,. Impact of reporting rules of biopsy Gleason score for prostate cancer. J Clin Pathol 2009; 62: 260-263
17. Ozok HU, Sagnak L, Tuygun C, et al. Will the modification of the Gleason grading system affect the urology practice? Int J Surg Pathol 2010; 18: 248-254
18. 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
19. Carter HB,. Management of low (favourable)-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int 2011; 108: 1684-1695
20. Dall'Era MA, Albertsen PC, Bangma C, et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 976-983
21. Etzioni R, Penson DF, Legler JM, et al. Overdiagnosis due to prostate-specific antigen screening: lessons from U.S. prostate cancer incidence trends. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002; 94: 981-990
22. Mohler J, Bahnson RR, Boston B, et al. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: prostate cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2010; 8: 162-200
23. Tosoian JJ, Trock BJ, Landis P, et al. Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 2185-2190
24. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Penson DF, Barrows G, Fine J,. 13-year outcomes following treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer in a population based cohort. J Urol 2007; 177: 932-936
25. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Fine J,. 20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 2005; 293: 2095-2101
26. Van Hemelrijck M, Wigertz A, Sandin F, et al. Cohort Profile: the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden and Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden 2.0. Int J Epidemiol 2013; 42: 956-967
27. Delahunt B, Lamb DS, Srigley JR, et al. Gleason scoring: a comparison of classical and modified (international society of urological pathology) criteria using nadir PSA as a clinical end point. Pathology 2010; 42: 339-343
28. Morales C, Margel D, Yap S, et al. Impact of the 2005 ISUP Gleason scoring system modification on our ability to predict extraprostatic extension. J Urol 2012; 187: e661
29. Carter HB, Partin AW, Walsh PC, et al. Gleason score 6 adenocarcinoma: should it be labeled as cancer? J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: 4294-4296
30. Jang TL, Han M, Roehl KA, Hawkins SA, Catalona WJ,. More favorable tumor features and progression-free survival rates in a longitudinal prostate cancer screening study: PSA era and threshold-specific effects. Urology 2006; 67: 343-348
31. Egevad L, Engström K, Mattson S, Wester K, Busch C,. Heterogeneity of DNA ploidy in prostate cancer. J Urol Pathol 1999; 10: 23-37
32. Iczkowski KA, Torkko KC, Kotnis GR, et al. Digital quantification of five high-grade prostate cancer patterns, including the cribriform pattern, and their association with adverse outcome. Am J Clin Pathol 2011; 136: 98-107
33. Egevad L, Norlen BJ, Norberg M,. The value of multiple core biopsies for predicting the Gleason score of prostate cancer. BJU Int 2001; 88: 716-721
34. Inoue LY, Trock BJ, Partin AW, Carter HB, Etzioni R,. Modeling grade progression in an active surveillance study. Stat Med 2014; 33: 930-939
35. Egevad L,. Reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostate cancer can be improved by the use of reference images. Urology 2001; 57: 291-295
36. Stattin P, Holmberg E, Johansson JE, Holmberg L, Adolfsson J, Hugosson J,. Outcomes in localized prostate cancer: National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden follow-up study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010; 102: 950-958
37. Egevad L, Ahmad AS, Algaba F, et al. Standardization of Gleason grading among 337 European pathologists. Histopathology 2013; 62: 247-256