|
1
|
Hanno P, Malkowicz SB and Wein AJ:
Clinical Manual of Urology. 3rd edition. McGraw-Hill; New York, NY:
pp. 5192001
|
|
2
|
Maccagnano C, Scattoni V, Roscigno M, et
al: Anaesthesia in transrectal prostate biopsy: which is the most
effective technique? Urol Int. 87:1–13. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
3
|
Astraldi A: Diagnosis of cancer of the
prostate: biopsy by rectal route. Urol Cutaneous Rev. 41:421–422.
1937.
|
|
4
|
Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK and Stamey
TA: Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal
core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol. 142:71–74; discussion 74–75.
1989.PubMed/NCBI
|
|
5
|
Hara R, Jo Y, Fujii T, et al: Optimal
approach for prostate cancer detection as initial biopsy:
prospective randomized study comparing transperineal versus
transrectal systematic 12-core biopsy. Urology. 71:191–195. 2008.
View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
6
|
Takenaka A, Hara R, Ishimura T, et al: A
prospective randomized comparison of diagnostic efficiency between
transperineal and transrectal 12-core prostate biopsy. Prostate
Cancer Prostatic Dis. 11:134–138. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
7
|
Donovan J, Hamdy F, Neal D, et al; ProtecT
Study Group. Prostate testing for cancer and treatment (ProtecT)
feasibility study. Health Technol Assess. 7:1–88. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
8
|
Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, et al; ISUP
Grading Committee. The 2005 International Society of Urological
Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of
Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 29:1228–1242. 2005.
View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
9
|
Billis A, Guimaraes MS, Freitas LL, et al:
The impact of the 2005 International Society of Urological
Pathology consensus conference on standard Gleason grading of
prostatic carcinoma in needle biopsies. J Urol. 180:548–553. 2008.
View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
10
|
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. 42:339–343. 2008.
View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
11
|
Walsh PC and Donker PJ: Impotence
following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and
prevention. J Urol. 128:492–497. 1982.PubMed/NCBI
|
|
12
|
Ficarra V, Novara G, Fracalanza S, et al:
A prospective, non-randomized trial comparing robot-assisted
laparoscopic and retropubic radical prostatectomy in one European
institution. BJU Int. 104:534–539. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
13
|
Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, et al:
EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis,
and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol. 59:61–71.
2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
14
|
Mian BM, Lehr DJ, Moore CK, et al: Role of
prostate biopsy schemes in accurate prediction of Gleason scores.
Urology. 67:379–383. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
15
|
Sengupta S, Slezak JM, Blute ML, et al:
Trends in distribution and prognostic significance of Gleason
grades on radical retropubic prostatectomy specimens between 1989
and 2001. Cancer. 106:2630–2635. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
16
|
Melia J, Moseley R, Ball RY, et al: A
UK-based investigation of inter- and intra-observer reproducibility
of Gleason grading of prostatic biopsies. Histopathology.
48:644–654. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
17
|
Kvåle R, Møller B, Wahlqvist R, et al:
Concordance between Gleason scores of needle biopsies and radical
prostatectomy specimens: a population-based study. BJU Int.
103:1647–1654. 2009.PubMed/NCBI
|
|
18
|
Capitanio U, Karakiewicz PI, Valiquette L,
et al: Biopsy core number represents one of foremost predictors of
clinically significant Gleason sum upgrading in patients with
low-risk prostate cancer. Urology. 73:1087–1091. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
19
|
D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB,
et al: Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external
beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for
clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 280:969–974. 1998.
|
|
20
|
Epstein JI, Feng Z, Trock BJ and
Pierorazio PM: 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. 61:1019–1024. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
21
|
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.
17:862–868. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
22
|
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. 13:182–185. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
23
|
Ruijter E, van Leenders G, Miller G, et
al: Errors in histological grading by prostatic needle biopsy
specimens: frequency and predisposing factors. J Pathol.
192:229–233. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
24
|
Thompson IM, Pauler DK, Goodman PJ, et al:
Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific
antigen level < or = 4 ng per milliliter. N Engl J Med.
350:2239–2246. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
25
|
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. 28:302–307. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
