The Journal of Urology
Volume 182, Issue 1 , Pages 118-124 , July 2009

Factors Predicting Prostatic Biopsy Gleason Sum Under Grading

Received 7 November 2008

References 

  1. Partin AW, Yoo J, Carter HB, Pearson JD, Chan DW, Epstein JI, et al. The use of prostate specific antigen, clinical stage and Gleason score to predict pathological stage in men with localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 1993;150:110
  2. Epstein JI, Pizov G, Walsh PC. Correlation of pathological findings with progression after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Cancer. 1993;71:3582
  3. Lattouf JB, Saad F. Gleason score on biopsy: is it reliable for predicting the final grade on pathology?. BJU Int. 2002;90:694
  4. King CR. Patterns of prostate cancer biopsy grading: trends and clinical implications. Int J Cancer. 2000;90:305
  5. Isariyawongse BK, Sun L, Bañez LL, Robertson C, Polascik TJ, Maloney K, et al. Significant discrepancies between diagnostic and pathologic Gleason sums in prostate cancer: the predictive role of age and prostate-specific antigen. Urology. 2008;72:882
  6. Cookson MS, Fleshner NE, Soloway SM, Fair WR. Correlation between Gleason score of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen: accuracy and clinical implications. J Urol. 1997;157:559
  7. Hong SK, Yu JH, Han BK, Chang IH, Jeong SJ, Byun SS, et al. Association of prostate size and tumor grade in Korean men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Urology. 2007;70:91
  8. 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
  9. Mills SE, Fowler JE. Gleason histologic grading of prostatic carcinoma (Correlations between biopsy and prostatectomy specimens). Cancer. 1986;57:346
  10. Scherr D, Swindle PW, Scardino PT. National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for the management of prostate cancer. Urology. 2003;61:14
  11. Freedland SJ, Kane CJ, Amling CL, Aronson WJ, Terris MK, Presti JC. Upgrading and downgrading of prostate needle biopsy specimens: risk factors and clinical implications. Urology. 2006;69:495
  12. Klotz L. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: for whom?. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:8165
  13. Nag S, Beyer D, Friedland J, Grimm P, Nath R. American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) recommendations for transperineal permanent brachytherapy of prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;44:789
  14. Hardie C, Parker C, Norman A, Eeles R, Horwich A, Huddart R, et al. Early outcomes of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2005;95:956
  15. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Barrows GH, Penson DF, Kowalczyk PD, Sanders MM, et al. Prostate cancer and the Will Rogers Phenomenon. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;97:1248
  16. Allsbrook WC, Mangold KA, Johnson MH, Lane RB, Lane CG, Epstein JI. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: general pathologist. Hum Pathol. 2001;32:81
  17. Emiliozzi P, Maymone S, Paterno A, Scarpone P, Amini M, Proietti G, et al. Increased accuracy of biopsy Gleason score obtained by extended needle biopsy. J Urol. 2004;172:2224
  18. Kattan M, Eastham JA, Stapleton AM, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT. A preoperative nomogram for disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90:766
  19. Stephenson AJ, Scardino PT, Eastham JA, Bianco FJ, Dotan ZA, Fearn PA, et al. Preoperative nomogram predicting the 10-year probability of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:715
  20. Chun FK, Steuber T, Erbersdobler A, Currlin E, Walz J, Schlomm T, et al. Development and internal validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of prostate cancer Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology. Eur Urol. 2006;49:820

 Study received Duke Prostate Center institutional review board approval.

PII: S0022-5347(09)00548-5

doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.02.127

The Journal of Urology
Volume 182, Issue 1 , Pages 118-124 , July 2009

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution