|
1
|
Center MM, Jemal A, Lortet-Tieulent J,
Ward E, Ferlay J, Brawley O and Bray F: International variation in
prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates. Eur Urol.
61:1079–1092. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
2
|
Dean LW, Assel M, Sjoberg DD, Vickers AJ,
Al-Ahmadie HA, Chen YB, Gopalan A, Sirintrapun SJ, Tickoo SK,
Eastham JA, et al: Clinical usefulness of total length of Gleason
pattern 4 on biopsy in men with grade group 2 prostate cancer. J
Urol. 201:77–82. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
3
|
Boehmer D, Maingon P, Poortmans P, Baron
MH, Miralbell R, Remouchamps V, Scrase C, Bossi A and Bolla M;
EORTC radiation oncology group, : Guidelines for primary
radiotherapy of patients with prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol.
79:259–269. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
4
|
Siddiqui 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. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
5
|
Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC,
Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, Collaco-Moraes Y, Ward K, Hindley RG,
Freeman A, et al: Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and
TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): A paired validating
confirmatory study. Lancet. 389:815–822. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
6
|
Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud
F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, Margolis D, Schnall MD, Shtern F, Tempany
CM, et al: PI-RADS prostate imaging-reporting and data system:
2015, version 2. Eur Urol. 69:16–40. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
7
|
Zhou P, Chen MH, McLeod D, Carroll PR,
Moul JW and D'Amico AV: Predictors of prostate cancer-specific
mortality after radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy. J Clin
Oncol. 23:6992–6998. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
8
|
Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB,
Egevad LL and Committee IG; 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
|
Kweldam CF, Wildhagen MF, Steyerberg EW,
Bangma CH, van der Kwast TH and van Leenders GJ: Cribriform growth
is highly predictive for postoperative metastasis and
disease-specific death in Gleason score 7 prostate cancer. Mod
Pathol. 28:457–464. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
10
|
Siadat F, Sykes J, Zlotta AR, Aldaoud N,
Egawa S, Pushkar D, Kuk C, Bristow RG, Montironi R and van der
Kwast T: Not all Gleason pattern 4 prostate cancers are created
equal: A study of latent prostatic carcinomas in a
cystoprostatectomy and autopsy series. Prostate. 75:1277–1284.
2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
11
|
McKenney JK, Wei W, Hawley S, Auman H,
Newcomb LF, Boyer HD, Fazli L, Simko J, Hurtado-Coll A, Troyer DA,
et al: Histologic grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma can be
further optimized: Analysis of the relative prognostic strength of
individual architectural patterns in 1275 patients from the canary
retrospective Cohort. Am J Surg Pathol. 40:1439–1456. 2016.
View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
12
|
Kir G, Sarbay BC, Gümüş E and Topal CS:
The association of the cribriform pattern with outcome for
prostatic adenocarcinomas. Pathol Res Pract. 210:640–644. 2014.
View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
13
|
Harding-Jackson N, Kryvenko ON,
Whittington EE, Eastwood DC, Tjionas GA, Jorda M and Iczkowski KA:
Outcome of Gleason 3+5=8 prostate cancer diagnosed on needle
biopsy: Prognostic comparison with Gleason 4+4=8. J Urol.
196:1076–1081. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
14
|
Zhang Q, Wang W, Zhang B, Shi J, Fu Y, Li
D, Guo S, Zhang S, Huang H, Jiang X, et al: Comparison of free-hand
transperineal mpMRI/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy with transperineal
12-core systematic biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer: A
single-center prospective study in China. Int Urol Nephrol.
49:439–448. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
15
|
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
|
|
16
|
Magi-Galluzzi C, Montironi R and Epstein
JI: Contemporary Gleason grading and novel grade groups in clinical
practice. Curr Opin Urol. 26:488–492. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
17
|
McNeal JE and Haillot O: Patterns of
spread of adenocarcinoma in the prostate as related to cancer
volume. Prostate. 49:48–57. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
18
|
Vickers AJ, Cronin AM, Elkin EB and Gonen
M: Extensions to decision curve analysis, a novel method for
evaluating diagnostic tests, prediction models and molecular
markers. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 8:532008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
19
|
Huang Y, Isharwal S, Haese A, Chun FK,
Makarov DV, Feng Z, Han M, Humphreys E, Epstein JI, Partin AW and
Veltri RW: Prediction of patient-specific risk and percentile
cohort risk of pathological stage outcome using continuous
prostate-specific antigen measurement, clinical stage and biopsy
Gleason score. BJU Int. 107:1562–1569. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
20
|
Ohori M, Kattan MW, Koh H, Maru N, Slawin
KM, Shariat S, Muramoto M, Reuter VE, Wheeler TM and Scardino PT:
Predicting the presence and side of extracapsular extension: A
nomogram for staging prostate cancer. J Urol. 171:1844–1849. 2004.
View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
21
|
Rayn KN, Bloom JB, Gold SA, Hale GR,
Baiocco JA, Mehralivand S, Czarniecki M, Sabarwal VK, Valera V,
Wood BJ, et al: Added value of multiparametric magnetic resonance
imaging to clinical nomograms for predicting adverse pathology in
prostate cancer. J Urol. 200:1041–1047. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
22
|
Junker D, Quentin M, Nagele U, Edlinger M,
Richenberg J, Schaefer G, Ladurner M, Jaschke W, Horninger W and
Aigner F: Evaluation of the PI-RADS scoring system for mpMRI of the
prostate: A whole-mount step-section analysis. World J Urol.
33:1023–1030. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
23
|
Lim CS, McInnes MDF, Lim RS, Breau RH,
Flood TA, Krishna S, Morash C, Shabana WM and Schieda N: Prognostic
value of prostate imaging and data reporting system (PI-RADS) v. 2
assessment categories 4 and 5 compared to histopathological
outcomes after radical prostatectomy. J Magn Reson Imaging.
46:257–266. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
24
|
Sarbay BC, Kir G, Topal CS and Gumus E:
Significance of the cribriform pattern in prostatic
adenocarcinomas. Pathol Res Pract. 210:554–557. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
25
|
Flood TA, Schieda N, Keefe DT, Morash C,
Bateman J, Mai KT, Belanger EC, Robertson SJ and Breau RH:
Perineural invasion on biopsy is associated with upstaging at
radical prostatectomy in Gleason score 3+4=7 prostate cancer.
Pathol Int. 66:629–632. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
26
|
Dong F, Yang P, Wang C, Wu S, Xiao Y,
McDougal WS, Young RH and Wu CL: Architectural heterogeneity and
cribriform pattern predict adverse clinical outcome for Gleason
grade 4 prostatic adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 37:1855–1861.
2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
27
|
Aminsharifi A, Schulman A, Howard LE, Tay
KJ, Amling CL, Aronson WJ, Cooperberg MR, Kane CJ, Terris MK,
Freedland SJ and Polascik TJ: Influence of African American race on
the association between preoperative biopsy grade group and adverse
histopathologic features of radical prostatectomy. Cancer.
125:3025–3032. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
28
|
Stroup SP, Moreira DM, Chen Z, Howard L,
Berger JH, Terris MK, Aronson WJ, Cooperberg MR, Amling CL, Kane CJ
and Freedland SJ: Biopsy detected Gleason pattern 5 is associated
with recurrence, metastasis and mortality in a cohort of men with
high risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 198:1309–1315. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
29
|
Eggener SE, Scardino PT, Walsh PC, Han M,
Partin AW, Trock BJ, Feng Z, Wood DP, Eastham JA, Yossepowitch O,
et al: Predicting 15-year prostate cancer specific mortality after
radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 185:869–875. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
30
|
Liu JJ, Lichtensztajn DY, Gomez SL, Sieh
W, Chung BI, Cheng I and Brooks JD: Nationwide prevalence of lymph
node metastases in Gleason score 3+3=6 prostate cancer. Pathology.
46:306–310. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
31
|
Gao J, Zhang C, Zhang Q, Fu Y, Zhao X,
Chen M, Zhang B, Li D, Shi J, Wang F and Guo H: Diagnostic
performance of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT for identification of
aggressive cribriform morphology in prostate cancer with
whole-mount sections. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 46:1531–1541.
2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBIPubMed/NCBIPubMed/NCBIPubMed/NCBIPubMed/NCBIPubMed/NCBIPubMed/NCBIPubMed/NCBIPubMed/NCBIPubMed/NCBIPubMed/NCBIPubMed/NCBIPubMed/NCBIPubMed/NCBIPubMed/NCBIPubMed/NCBIPubMed/NCBIPubMed/NCBIPubMed/NCBIPubMed/NCBIPubMed/NCBIPubMed/NCBIPubMed/NCBI
|
