Revised gleason grading system is a better predictor of indolent prostate cancer at the time of diagnosis: Retrospective clinical-pathological study on matched biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens

Clinical Genitourinary Cancer

Volumn 12, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 325-329

  Giunchi, Francesca ^a   Brunocilla, Eugenio ^b   Borghesi, Marco ^b   Rizzi, Simona ^b   Ricci, Martina Sofia ^b   Romagnoli, Daniele ^b   Martorana, Giuseppe ^b   Schiavina, Riccardo ^b   Fiorentino, Michelangelo ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Active surveillance; Gleason grading; Histopathology; Indolent tumor; Prostate cancer

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FOLLOW UP; GLEASON SCORE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PREDICTION; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; BLOOD; CANCER GRADING; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; PROSTATE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS;

AGED; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; PROSTATE; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 84922631847     PISSN: 15587673     EISSN: 19380682     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.clgc.2014.01.009     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Epstein JI, Chan DW, Sokoll LJ, et al. Nonpalpable stage T1c prostate cancer: prediction of insignificance disease using free/total prostate-specific antigen levels and needle biopsy findings. J Urol 1998; 160:2407-11
2. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmicheal M, et al. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable prostate cancer. JAMA 1994; 271: 368-74
3. Stamey TA, Freiha FS, McNeal JE, et al. Localized prostate cancer. Relationship of tumor volume to clinical significance for treatment of prostate cancer. Cancer 1993; 71:933-8
4. Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al. Screening and prostate cancer mortality in randomized European study. N Engl J Med 2009; 360:1320-8
5. Schröder FH. Screening for prostate cancer: an update on recent findings of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). Urol Oncol 2008; 26:533-41
6. Brunocilla E, Pultrone C, Pernetti R, et al. Preservation of the smooth muscular internal (vesical) sphincter and of the proximal urethra during retropubic radical prostatectomy: description of the technique. Int J Urol 2012; 19:783-5
7. Iremashvili V, Peleaz L, Manoharan M, et al. Pathologic prostate cancer characteristic in patients eligible for active surveillance: a head-to-head comparison of contemporary protocols. Eur Urol 2012; 62:462-8
8. 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; 29:1-6
9. Van der Bergh RC, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, et al. Prospective validation of active surveillance in prostate cancer: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol 2007; 52: 1560-3
10. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL; ISUP Grading Committee. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005; 29: 1228-42
11. Brimo F, Montironi R, Egevad L, et al. Contemporary grading for prostate cancer: implications for patient care. Eur Urol 2013; 63:892-901
12. 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; 55:384-91
13. Egevad L, Ahmad AS, Algaba F, et al. Standardization of Gleason grading among 337 European pathologists. Histopathology 2013; 62:247-56
14. Lee MC, Dong F, Stephenson AJ. The Epstein criteria predict for organ-confined but not insignificant disease and a high likelihood of cure at radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2010; 58:90-5
15. Van den Bergh RC, Vasarainen H, van der Poel HG, et al. Short-term outcomes of the prospective multicentre ?Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance? study. BJU Int 2009; 105:956-62
16. Edge S, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Green FL, Trotti A. American Joint Committee on Cancer. Cancer staging manual. 7th Edition. Newyork NY, Springer, 2010
17. World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. Bull World Health Organ 2001; 79:373-4
18. Center MM, Jemal A, Lortet-Tieulent J, et al. International variation in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates. Eur Urol 2012; 61:1079-92
19. Pierorazio PM, Walsh PC, PartinAW, Epstein JI. Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int 2013; 111:753-60
20. Billis A, Quintal MM, Meirelles L, et al. The value of the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) modified Gleason grading system as a predictor of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Int Urol Nephrol, Published online Oct 6, 2013; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11255-013-0579-8
21. Carter HB, Partin AW, Walsh PC, et al. Gleason score adenocarcinoma: should it be labeled cancer? J Clin Oncol 2012; 30:4294-6
22. Penney KL, Stampfer MJ, Jahn JL, et al. Gleason grade progression is uncommon. Cancer Res 2013; 73:5163-8.