Erratum: Prostate biopsy concordance in a large population-based sample: A surveillance, epidemiology and end results study (J Clin Pathol (2015) 68 (453-457) DOI: 10.1136/jclinpath-2014-202767);Prostate biopsy concordance in a large populationbased sample: A Surveillance, epidemiology and end results study

Journal of Clinical Pathology

Volumn 68, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 453-457

  Schreiber, David ^a,b   Wong, Andrew T ^a,b   Rineer, Justin ^c   Weedon, Jeremy ^b   Schwartz, David ^a,b  

^a DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS   (United States)

^b SUNY DOWNSTATE MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c ORLANDO HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER GRADING; CANCER SURGERY; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; METABOLISM; MIDDLE AGED; NEEDLE BIOPSY; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROSTATE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REGISTER; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; UNITED STATES;

AGED; BIOPSY, NEEDLE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; PROSTATE; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REGISTRIES; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84929655155     PISSN: 00219746     EISSN: 14724146     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jclinpath-2014-202767corr1     Document Type: Erratum

References (26)

1. Budaus L, Graefen M, Salomon G, et al. The novel nomogram of Gleason sum upgrade: possible application for the eligible criteria of low dose rate brachytherapy. Int J Urol 2010;17:862-8.
2. Colleselli D, Pelzer AE, Steiner E, et al. Upgrading of Gleason score 6 prostate cancers on biopsy after prostatectomy in the low and intermediate tPSA range. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2010;13:182-5.
3. Magheli A, Hinz S, Hege C, et al. Prostate specific antigen density to predict prostate cancer upgrading in a contemporary radical prostatectomy series: a single center experience. J Urol 2010;183:126-31.
4. Seisen T, Roudot-Thoraval F, Bosset PO, et al. Predicting the risk of harboring high grade disease for patients diagnosed with prostate cancer scored as Gleason. 6 on biopsy cores. Worl J Urol 2014. Published Online First.
5. Sarici H, Telli O, Yigitbasi O, et al. Predictors of Gleason score upgrading in patients with prostate biopsy Gleason score.6. Can Urol Assoc J 2014;8:E342.6.
6. Kim KH, Lim SK, Shin TY, et al. Upgrading of Gleason score and prostate volume: a clinicopathological analysis. BJU Int 2013;111:1310-16.
7. Moussa AS, Li J, Soriano M, et al. Prostate biopsy clinical and pathological variables that predict significant grading changes in patients with intermediate and high grade prostate cancer. BJU Int 2009;103:43-8.
8. 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;61:1019-24.
9. Treurniet KM, Trudel D, Sykes J, et al. Downgrading of biopsy based Gleason score in prostatectomy specimens. Journal of Clinical Pathology 2014;67:313-18.
10. Pinhus JH, Witkos M, Fleshner NE, et al. Prostate cancer scored as Gleason 6 on prostate biopsy are frequently Gleason 7 tumors at radical prostatectomy: implication on outcome. J Urol 2006;176:979-84.
11. Serkin FB, Soderdahl DW, Cullen J, et al. Patient risk stratification using Gleason score concordance and upgrading among men with prostate biopsy Gleason score 6 or 7. Urol Oncol 2010;28:302-7.
12. Freedland SJ, Kane CJ, Amling CL, et al. Upgrading and downgrading of prostate needle biopsy specimens: risk factors and clinical implications. Urology 2007;69:495-9.
13. Dong F, Jones JS, Stephenson AJ, et al. Prostate cancer volume at biopsy predicts clinically significant upgrading. J Urol 2008;179:896-900.
14. Kupelian P, Katcher J, Levin H, et al. Correlation of clinical and pathologic factors with rising prostate specific antigen and postoperative pathological findings to predict prostate specific antigen outcome in clinically localized prostate cancer. Urology 1996;48:249-60.
15. D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. The combination of preoperative prostate specific antigen and postoperative pathological findings to predict prostate specific antigen outcome in clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 1998;160:2096-101.
16. Grossfeld GD, Chang JJ, Broering JM, et al. Impact of positive surgical margins on prostate cancer recurrence and the use of secondary cancer treatment: data from the CaPSURE database. J Urol 2000;163:1171-7.
17. Stephenson AJ, Shariat SF, Zelefsky MJ, et al. Salvage radiotherapy for recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. JAMA 2004;291:1325-32.
18. Kuroiwa K, Shiraishi T, Naito S. Gleason score correlation between biopsy and prostatectomy specimens and prediction of high-grade Gleason patterns: Significance of central pathologic review. Urology 2011;77:407-11.
19. Walker R, Lindner U, Louis A, et al. Concordance between transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy results and radical prostatectomy final pathology: Are we getting better at predicting final pathology? Can Urol Ass J 2014;8:47-52.
20. Suer E, Gokce MI, Gulpinar O, et al. How significant is upgrade in Gleason score between prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology while discussing less invasive treatment options? Scand J Urol 2014;48:177-82.
21. Agarwal M, Schwartz D, Weiss J, et al. Concordance between prostate needle biopsy and surgical histopathology in a primarily African-American population. Int J Surg Path 2014;22:414-19.
22. Gofrit ON, Zorn KC, Taxy JB, et al. Predicting the risk of patients with biopsy Gleason score 6 to harbor a higher grade cancer. J Urol 2007;178:1925-8.
23. Gondo T, Poon BY, Matsumoto K, et al. Clinical role of pathological downgrading after radical prostatectomy in patients with biopsy confirmed Gleason score 3+4 prostate cancer. BJU Int 2015;115:81-6.
24. Moussa AS, Kattan MW, Berglund R, et al. A nomogram for predicting upgrading in patients with low and intermediate grade prostate cancer in the era of extended prostate sampling. BJU Int 2010;105:352-8.
25. National Cancer Care Network Guidelines on prostate cancer. http://www.nccn.org (accessed 10 Aug. 2014).
26. Imamoto T, Suzuki H, Utsumi T, et al. External validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of prostate cancer Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatecetomy pathology among Japanese patients. Urology 2010;76:404-10.