|
1
|
Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B,
Srigley JR and Humphrey PA: Grading Committee. The 2014
international society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus
conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: Definition of
grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg
Pathol. 40:244–252. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
2
|
Barqawi AB, Turcanu R, Gamito EJ, Lucia
SM, O'Donnell CI, Crawford ED, La Rosa DD and La Rosa FG: The value
of second-opinion pathology diagnoses on prostate biopsies from
patients referred for management of prostate cancer. Int J Clin Exp
Pathol. 4:468–475. 2011.PubMed/NCBI
|
|
3
|
Ruijter E, van Leeders G, Miler G,
Debruyne F and van de Kaa C: Errors in histological grading by
prostatic needle biopsy specimens: Frequency and predisposing
factors. J Pathol. 192:229–233. 2000.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
4
|
Brimo F, Schultz L and Epstein JI: The
value of mandatory second opinion pathology review of prostate
needle biopsy interpretation before radical prostatectomy. J Urol.
184:126–130. 2010.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
5
|
Truesdale MD, Cheetham PJ, Turk AT,
Sartori S, Hruby GW, Dinneen EP, Benson MC and Badani KK: Gleason
score concordance on biopsy-confirmed prostate cancer: Is
pathological re-evaluation necessary prior to radical
prostatectomy? BJU Int. 107:749–754. 2011.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
6
|
Weir MM, Jan E and Colgan TJ:
Interinstituional pathology consultations. A reassessment. Am J
Clin Pathol. 120:405–412. 2003.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
7
|
Epstein JI, Walsh PC and Sanfilippo F:
Clinical and cost impact of second-opinion pathology. Review of
prostate biopsies prior to radical prostatectomy. Am J Surg Pathol.
20:851–857. 1996.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
8
|
Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD,
Nelson JB, Egevad L, Magi-Galluzzi C, Vickers AJ, Parwani AV,
Reuter VE, Fine SW, et al: A contemporary prostate cancer grading
system: A Validated alternative to the Gleason score. Eur Urol.
69:428–435. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
9
|
Loeb S, Folkvaljon Y, Robinson D,
Lissbrant IF, Egevad L and Stattin P: Evaluation of the 2015
Gleason grade groups in a nationwide populaton-based cohort. Eur
Urol. 69:1135–1141. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
10
|
Womble PR, Montie JE, Ye Z, Linsell SM,
Lane BR and Miller DC: Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement
Collaborative: Contemporary use of initial active surveillance
among men in Michigan with low-risk prostate cancer. Eur Urol.
67:44–50. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
11
|
Eggener SE, bandani K, Barocas DA,
Barrisford GW, Cheng JS, Chin AI, Corcoran A, Epstein JI, George
AK, Gupta GN, et al: Gleason 6 prostate cancer: Translating biology
into population health. J Urol. 194:626–634. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
12
|
Kanda Y: Investigation of the freely
available easy-to-use software ‘EZR’ for medical statistics. Bone
Marrow Transplant. 48:452–458. 2013.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
13
|
Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E,
Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, Fossati N, Gross T, Henry AM, Joniau
S, et al: EAU-ESTRO-SLOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1:
Screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur
Urol. 71:618–629. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
14
|
Montironi R, Lopez-Beltran A, Cheng L,
Montorsi F and Scarpelli M: Central prostate pathology review:
Should it be mandatory? Eur Urol. 64:199–201. 2013.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
15
|
Steinberg DM, Sauvageot J, Piantadosi S
and Epstein JI: Correlation of prostate needle biopsy and radical
prostatectomy Gleason grade in academic and community settings. Am
J Surg Pathol. 21:566–576. 1997.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
16
|
Renshaw AA, Schultz D, Cote K, Loffredo M,
Ziemba DE and D'Amico AV: Accurate Gleason grading of prostatic
adenocarcinoma in prostate needle biopsies by general pathologists.
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 127:1007–1008. 2003.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
17
|
Soga N, Yatabe Y, Kageyama T, Ogura Y and
Hayashi N: Review of bioptic scores by central pathologist modifies
the risk classification in prostate cancer. Urol Int. 95:452–456.
2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
18
|
Townsend NC, Ruth K, Al-Saleem T, Horwitz
EM, Sobczak M, Uzzo RG, Viterbo R and Buyyounouski MK: Gleason
scoring at a comprehensive cancer center: What's the difference? J
Natl Compr Canc Netw. 11:812–819. 2013.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
19
|
McLean M, Srigley J, Banerjee D, Warde P
and Hao Y: Interobserver variation in prostate cancer Gleason
scoring: Are there implications for the desigh of clinical trials
and treatment strategies? Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 9:222–225.
1997.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
20
|
Usón PLS junior, Macarenco RSES, Oliveira
FN and Smaletz O: Impact of pathology review for decision therapy
in localized prostate cancer. Clin Med Insights Pathol.
10(1179555717740130)2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
21
|
Klein EA, Cooperberg MR, Magi-Galluzzi C,
Simko JP, Falzarano SM, Maddala T, Chan JM, Li J, Cowan JE, Tsiatis
AC, et al: A 17-gene assay to predict prostate cancer
aggressiveness in the context of Gleason grade heterogeneity, tumor
multifocality, and biopsy undersampling. Eur Urol. 66:550–560.
2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
22
|
Quentin M, Blondin D, Arsov C, Schimmöller
L, Hiester A, Godehardt E, Albers P, Antoch G and Rabenalt R:
Prospective evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging guided in-bore
prostate biopsy versus systematic transrectal ultrasound guided
prostate biopsy in biopsy naïve men with elevated prostate specific
antigen. J Urol. 192:1374–1379. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
23
|
Xu N, Wu YP, Li XD, Lin MY, Zheng QS, Chen
SH, Li JF, Wei Y and Xue XY: Risk of upgrading from prostate biopsy
to radical prostatectomy pathology: Is magnetic resonance
imaging-guided biopsy more accurate? J Cancer. 9:3634–3639.
2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
24
|
Siddigui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B,
George AK, Rothwax J, Shakir N, Okoro C, Raskolnikov D, Parnes HL,
Linehan WM, et al: Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy
with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer.
JAMA. 313:390–397. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
25
|
Litwin MS and Tan HJ: The diagnosis and
treatment of prostate cancer: A review. JAMA. 317:2532–2542.
2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
26
|
De Rooij M, Hamoen EH, Futterer JJ,
Barentsz JO and Rovers MM: Accuracy of multiparametric MRI for
prostate cancer detection: A meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol.
202:343–351. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
27
|
Washino S, Okochi T, Saito K, Konishi T,
Hirai M, Kobayashi Y and Miyagawa T: Combination of prostate
imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) score and
prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density predicts biopsy outcome in
prostate biopsy naïve patients. BJU Int. 119:225–233.
2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
28
|
Veneziano S, Pavlica P, Compagnone G and
Martorana G: Usefulness of the (F/T)/PSA density ratio to detect
prostate cancer. Urol Int. 74:13–18. 2005.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
29
|
Corcoran NM, Casey RG, Hong MK, Pedersen
J, Connolly S, Peters J, Harewood L, Gleave ME, Costello AJ, Hovens
CM and Goldenberg SL: The ability of prostate-specific antigen
(PSA) density to predict an upgrade in Gleason score between
initial prostate biopsy and prostatectomy diminishes with
increasing tumour grade due to reduced PSA secretion per unit
tumour volume. BJU Int. 110:36–42. 2012.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
