Gleason drift in the NIHR Protect study

Histopathology

Volumn 66, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 438-446

  Oxley, Jon ^a   Simpkin, Andrew ^b   Goepel, John ^c   Varma, Murali ^d   Griffiths, David ^d   Grigor, Ken ^e   Mayer, Nick ^f   Warren, Anne ^g   Deshmukh, Nayneeta ^h   Bhattarai, Selina ⁱ   Dormer, John ^f   Hounsome, Luke ^j   Adamczyk, Lukasz A ^a   Metcalfe, Christopher ^b   Lane, J Athene ^b   Davis, Michael ^b   Donovan, Jenny L ^b   Neal, David E ^k   Hamdy, Freddy C ^l   Robinson, Mary C ^m  

^a SOUTHMEAD HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^c ROYAL HALLAMSHIRE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OF WALES   (United Kingdom)

^e WESTERN GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^f UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

^g UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^h UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

ⁱ LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^j PUBLIC HEALTH ENGLAND   (United Kingdom)

^k UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^l UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^m ROYAL VICTORIA INFIRMARY   (United Kingdom)

more..

Author keywords

Biopsy; Drift; Gleason; Prostate cancer; ProtecT

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; AGE; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; ONCOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; PERINEURAL INVASION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; TUMOR BIOPSY; TUMOR LENGTH; BLOOD; CANCER GRADING; MIDDLE AGED; NEEDLE BIOPSY; PATHOLOGY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; STANDARDS; UNITED KINGDOM;

AGED; BIOPSY, NEEDLE; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84921503197     PISSN: 03090167     EISSN: 13652559     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/his.12549     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Lane JA, Hamdy FC, Martin RM, Turner EL, Neal DE, Donovan JL. Latest results from the UK trials evaluating prostate cancer screening and treatment: the CAP and ProtecT studies. Eur. J. Cancer 2010; 46; 3095-3101.
2. Egevad L, Mazzucchelli R, Montironi R. Implications of the International Society of Urological Pathology modified Gleason grading system. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 2012; 136; 426-434.
3. Stark JR, Perner S, Stampfer MJ et al. Gleason score and lethal prostate cancer: does 3 + 4 = 4 + 3? J. Clin. Oncol. 2009; 27; 3459-6344.
4. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Barrows GH et al. Prostate cancer and the Will Rogers phenomenon. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 2005; 97; 1248-1253.
5. Delahunt B, Miller RJ, Srigley JR, Evans AJ, Samaratunga H. Gleason grading: past, present and future. Histopathology 2012; 60; 75-86.
6. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC, Amin MB, Egevad LL. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2005; 29; 1228-1242.
7. Biedrzycki O, Varma M, Berney DM. Variations in the processing of prostatic needle cores in the UK; what is safe? J. Clin. Pathol. 2003; 56; 341-343.
8. Green R, Epstein JI. Use of intervening unstained slides for immunohistochemical stains for high molecular weight cytokeratin on prostate needle biopsies. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 1999; 23; 567-570.
9. Williams GT, Ansell ID, Price A. Standards and minimum datasets for reporting cancers. Minimum dataset for prostate cancer histopathology reports. London, UK: Royal College of Pathologists, 2000.
10. Epstein JI. The diagnosis and reporting of adenocarcinoma of the prostate in core needle biopsy specimens. Cancer 1996; 78; 350-356.
11. Epstein JI. Gleason score 2-4 adenocarcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: a diagnosis that should not be made. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2000; 24; 477-478.
12. Bostwick DG, Dundore P. Grading. Biopsy pathology of the prostate. London: Chapman and Hall Medical, 1997; 141-166.
13. Van der Kwast TH, Lopes C, Santonja C et al. Guidelines for processing and reporting of prostatic needle biopsies. J. Clin. Pathol. 2003; 56; 336-340.
14. Oxley J. Reviewing negative prostatic core biopsies for the multidisciplinary team meeting. Histopathology 2005; 47; 643-644.
15. Iczkowski KA. Current prostate biopsy interpretation: criteria for cancer, atypical small acinar proliferation, high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, and use of immunostains. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 2006; 130; 835-843.
16. Kronz JD, Shaikh AA, Epstein JI. High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia with adjacent small atypical glands on prostate biopsy. Hum. Pathol. 2001; 32; 389-395.
17. Epstein JI, Potter SR. The pathological interpretation and significance of prostate needle biopsy findings: implications and current controversies. J. Urol. 2001; 166; 402-410.
18. Catalona WJ, Partin AW, Slawin KM et al. Use of the percentage of free prostate-specific antigen to enhance differentiation of prostate cancer from benign prostatic disease: a prospective multicenter clinical trial. JAMA 1998; 279; 1542-1547.
19. Rubin MA, Dunn R, Kambham N, Misick CP, O'Toole KM. Should a Gleason score be assigned to a minute focus of carcinoma on prostate biopsy? Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2000; 24; 1634-1640.
20. Lopez-Beltran A, Mikuz G, Luque RJ, Mazzucchelli R, Montironi R. Current practice of Gleason grading of prostate carcinoma. Virchows Arch. 2006; 448; 111-118.
21. Allsbrook WC, Mangold KA, Johnson MH et al. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: urologic pathologists. Hum. Pathol. 2001; 32; 74-80.
22. Griffiths DFR, Melia J, McWilliam LJ et al. A study of Gleason score interpretation in different groups of UK pathologists; techniques for improving reproducibility. Histopathology 2006; 48; 655-662.
23. Kronz JD, Silberman MA, Allsbrook WC, Epstein JI. A web-based tutorial improves practicing pathologists' Gleason grading of images of prostate carcinoma specimens obtained by needle biopsy: validation of a new medical education paradigm. Cancer 2000; 89; 1818-1823.
24. Harnden P, Coleman D, Moss S, Kodikara S, Patnick J, Melia J. Prostatic pathology reporting in the UK: development of a national external quality assurance scheme. Histopathology 2008; 52; 147-157.
25. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes. Undertaking a transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy of the prostate. 2006. Available at: http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/prostate/pcrmp01.pdf. Accessed 8/11/14.
26. 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.
27. Boevee SJ, Venderbos LDF, Tammela TLJ et al. Change of tumour characteristics and treatment over time in both arms of the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. Eur. J. Cancer 2010; 46; 3082-3089.
28. Danneman D, Drevin L, Robinson D, Stattin P, Egevad L. Gleason inflation 1998-2011. A registry study of 97 168 men. BJU Int. 2014. Epub ahead of print.
29. 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.
30. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Healthcare services for urological cancers. 2002. Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/csguc/evidence/improving-outcomes-in-urological-cancers-manual-2. Accessed 8/11/14.
31. 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.
32. 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.