Utility of Gleason pattern 4 morphologies detected on transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsies for prediction of upgrading or upstaging in Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 prostate cancer

Virchows Archiv

Volumn 469, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 313-319

  Flood, Trevor A ^a   Schieda, Nicola ^a   Keefe, Daniel T ^a   Breau, Rodney H ^a   Morash, Chris ^a   Hogan, Kevin ^a   Belanger, Eric C ^a   Mai, Kien T ^a   Robertson, Susan J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Active surveillance; Cribriform morphology; Gleason score; Prostate; Prostate cancer; TRUS guided needle biopsy

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; AGE; ARTICLE; CANCER STAGING; GLEASON SCORE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PATHOLOGIST; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; RECTUM BIOPSY; TRANSRECTAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY; AGED; CANCER GRADING; METABOLISM; MIDDLE AGED; NEEDLE BIOPSY; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RISK FACTOR;

ADULT; AGED; BIOPSY, NEEDLE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RISK FACTORS;

EID: 84978149788     PISSN: 09456317     EISSN: 14322307     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00428-016-1981-2     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Siegel R et al. (2014) Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 64(1):9–29
2. Ploussard G et al. (2011) The contemporary concept of significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 60(2):291–303
3. Dall’Era MA et al. (2012) Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 62(6):976–983
4. Stattin P et al. (2010) Outcomes in localized prostate cancer: National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden follow-up study. J Natl Cancer Inst 102(13):950–958
5. Bangma CH et al. (2013) Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 85(3):295–302
6. Klotz L (2015) Active surveillance and focal therapy for low-intermediate risk prostate cancer. Transl Androl Urol 4(3):342–354
7. Morash C et al. (2015) Active surveillance for the management of localized prostate cancer: guideline recommendations. Can Urol Assoc J 9(5–6):171–178
8. Klotz L et al. (2010) Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 28(1):126–131
9. van As NJ et al. (2008) Predicting the probability of deferred radical treatment for localised prostate cancer managed by active surveillance. Eur Urol 54(6):1297–1305
10. van den Bergh RC et al. (2007) Prospective validation of active surveillance in prostate cancer: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol 52(6):1560–1563
11. van den Bergh RC et al. (2009) Gleason score 7 screen-detected prostate cancers initially managed expectantly: outcomes in 50 men. BJU Int 103(11):1472–1477
12. Epstein JI et al. (2012) 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 61(5):1019–1024
13. Huang CC et al. (2014) 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. Am J Surg Pathol 38(8):1096–1101
14. Epstein JI et al. (2005) The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 29(9):1228–1242
15. Iczkowski KA et al. (2011) Digital quantification of five high-grade prostate cancer patterns, including the cribriform pattern, and their association with adverse outcome. Am J Clin Pathol 136(1):98–107
16. Keefe DT et al. (2015) Cribriform morphology predicts upstaging after radical prostatectomy in patients with Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 prostate cancer at transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided needle biopsy. Virchows Arch 467(4):437–442
17. Siadat F et al. (2015) Not all Gleason pattern 4 prostate cancers are created equal: a study of latent prostatic carcinomas in a cystoprostatectomy and autopsy series. Prostate 75(12):1277–1284
18. Kryvenko ON et al. (2013) Gleason score 7 adenocarcinoma of the prostate with lymph node metastases: analysis of 184 radical prostatectomy specimens. Arch Pathol Lab Med 137(5):610–617
19. Bastian PJ et al. (2009) Insignificant prostate cancer and active surveillance: from definition to clinical implications. Eur Urol 55(6):1321–1330
20. Conti SL et al. (2009) Pathological outcomes of candidates for active surveillance of prostate cancer. J Urol 181(4):1628–1633 discussion 1633-4
21. Eggener SE et al. (2009) A multi-institutional evaluation of active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 181(4):1635–1641 discussion 1641
22. van den Bergh RC et al. (2010) Short-term outcomes of the prospective multicentre ‘Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance’ study. BJU Int 105(7):956–962
23. Kweldam CF et al. (2015) Cribriform growth is highly predictive for postoperative metastasis and disease-specific death in Gleason score 7 prostate cancer. Mod Pathol 28(3):457–464
24. Egevad L et al. (2011) Interactive digital slides with heat maps: a novel method to improve the reproducibility of Gleason grading. Virchows Arch 459(2):175–182
25. Dong F et al. (2013) Architectural heterogeneity and cribriform pattern predict adverse clinical outcome for Gleason grade 4 prostatic adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 37(12):1855–1861
26. Qian J, Jenkins RB, Bostwick DG (1997) Detection of chromosomal anomalies and c-myc gene amplification in the cribriform pattern of prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and carcinoma by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Mod Pathol 10(11):1113–1119
27. Herawi M, Epstein JI (2007) Immunohistochemical antibody cocktail staining (p63/HMWCK/AMACR) of ductal adenocarcinoma and Gleason pattern 4 cribriform and noncribriform acinar adenocarcinomas of the prostate. Am J Surg Pathol 31(6):889–894
28. Pacelli A et al. (1998) Prostatic adenocarcinoma with glomeruloid features. Hum Pathol 29(5):543–546