Prognostic factors and reporting of prostate carcinoma in radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy specimens

References

• Hall GS, Kramer CE, Epstein JI. Evaluation of radical prostatectomy specimens. A comparative analysis of sam-pling methods. Am J Surg Pathol 1992;16:315–24.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen MB, Soloway MS, Murphy WM. Sampling of radical prostatectomy specimens. How much is adequate? Am J Chin Pathol 1994;101:250–2.
   Google Scholar
• Hoedemaeker RF, Ruijter ETG, Ruizeveld-de Winter JA, van der Kaa CA, The BIOMED II MPC study group, van der Kwast TH. Processing radical prostatectomy speci-mens. A comprehensive and standardized protocol. J Urol Pathol 1998;9:211–22.
   Google Scholar
• True LD. Surgical pathology examination of the prostate gland. Practice survey by American society of clinical pathologists. Am J Chin Pathol 1994;102:572–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sehdev AE, Pan CC, Epstein JI. Comparative analysis of sampling methods for grossing radical prostatectomy speci-mens performed for nonpalpable (stage Tic) prostatic adenocarcinoma. Hum Pathol 2001;32:494–9.
   Google Scholar
• Carter HB, Sauvageot J, Walsh PC, Epstein JI. Prospective evaluation of men with stage T1C adenocarcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 1997;157:2206–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, Brendler CB. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage Tic) prostate cancer. JANIA 1994; 271:368–74.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Connolly JA, Shinohara K, Presti JC Jr., Carroll PR. Local recurrence after radical prostatectomy: characteristics in size, location, and relationship to prostate-specific antigen and surgical margins. Urology 1996;47:225–31.
   Google Scholar
• Foster LS, Jajodia P, Fournier G Jr., Shinohara K, Carroll P, Narayan P. The value of prostate specific antigen and transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy in detecting prostatic fossa recurrences following radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1993;149:1024–8.
   Google Scholar
• Van den Ouden D, Bentvelsen FM, Boeve ER, Schroder FH. Positive margins after radical prostatectomy: correla-tion with local recurrence and distant progression. Br J Urol 1993;72:489–94.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ripple MG, Potter SR, Partin AW, Epstein JI. Needle biopsy of recurrent adenocarcinoma of the prostate after radical prostatectomy. Mod Pathol 2000;13:521–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egevad L, Engstrom K, Busch C. A new method for handling radical prostatectomies enabling fresh tissue harvesting, whole mount sections and landmarks for align-ment of sections. J Urol Pathol 1998;9:17–28.
   Google Scholar
• Furman J, Murphy WM, Rice L, Drew PA, Narayan P. Prostatectomy tissue for research: balancing patient care and discovery. Am J Chin Pathol 1998;110:4–9.
   Google Scholar
• Hoedemaeker RF, Ruijter ETG, van der Kwast TH, Ruizeveld-de Winter JA, van der Kaa CA. Processing radical prostatectomy specimens: a comprehensive and standardized protocol. J Urol Pathol 1998;9:211–22.
   Google Scholar
• Wheeler TM, Lebovitz RM. Fresh tissue harvest for research from prostatectomy specimens. Prostate 1994;25:274–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bova GS, Fox WM, Epstein JI. Methods of radical prostatectomy specimen processing: a novel technique for harvesting fresh prostate cancer tissue and review of processing techniques. Mod Pathol 1993;6:201–7.
   Google Scholar
• Neulander EZ, Soloway MS. Failure after radical prosta-tectomy. Urology 2003;61:30–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Catalona WJ, Smith DS. Cancer recurrence and survival rates after anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy for prostate cancer: intermediate-term results. J Urol 1998;160:2428–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bluestein DL, Bostwick DG, Bergstralh EJ, Oesterling JE. Eliminating the need for bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy in select patients with prostate cancer. J Urol 1994;151:1315–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cagiannos I, Karakiewicz P, Eastham JA, Ohori M, Rabbani F, Gerigk C, et al. A preoperative nomogram identifying decreased risk of positive pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer. J Urol 2003;170:1798–803.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naraghi R, Becich MJ, O'Donnell W, Bahnson RR Routine frozen section of pelvic lymph node specimens prior to radical retropubic prostatectomy is unnecessary in patients with prostate specific antigen. Urol Oncol 1996;2:141–5.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Edelstein RA, Zietman AL, de las Morenas A, Krane RJ, Babayan RK, Dallow KC, et al. Implications of prostate micrometastases in pelvic lymph nodes: an archival tissue study. Urology 1996;47:370–5.
   Google Scholar
• Okegawa T, Nutahara K, Higashihara E. Detection of micrometastatic prostate cancer cells in the lymph nodes by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction is predictive of biochemical recurrence in pathological stage T2 prostate cancer. J Urol 2000;163: 1183–8.
   Google Scholar
• Shariat SF, Kattan MW, Erdarnar S, Nguyen C, Scardino PT, Spencer DM, et al. Detection of clinically significant, occult prostate cancer metastases in lymph nodes using a splice variant-specific rt-PCR assay for human glandular kallikrein. J Chin Oncol 2003;21:1223–31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shariat SF, Roudier MP, Wilcox GE, Kattan MW, Scardino PT, Vessella RL, et al. Comparison of immunohistochem-istry with reverse transcription-PCR for the detection of micrometastatic prostate cancer in lymph nodes. Cancer Res 2003;63:4662–70.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hermanek P, Hutter RVP, Sobin LH, Wittekind C. International Union Against Cancer. Classification of isolated tumor cells and micrometastasis. Cancer 1999;86:2668–73.
   Google Scholar
• Partin AW, Kattan MW, Subong EN, Walsh PC, Wojno KJ, Oesterling JE, et al. Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update. JAMA 1997;277:1445–51.
   Google Scholar
• Epstein JI, Oesterling JE, Eggleston JC, Walsh PC. Frozen section detection of lymph node metastases in prostatic carcinoma: accuracy in grossly uninvolved pelvic lympha-denectomy specimens. J Urol 1986;136:1234–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sgrignoli AR, Walsh PC, Steinberg GD, Steiner MS, Epstein JI. Prognostic factors in men with stage D1 prostate cancer: identification of patients less likely to have pro-longed survival after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1994;152: 1077–81.
   Google Scholar
• Kothari PS, Scardino PT, Ohori M, Kattan MW, Wheeler TM. Incidence, location, and significance of periprostatic and periseminal vesicle lymph nodes in prostate cancer, Am J Surg Pathol 2001;25:1429–32.
   Google Scholar
• Cheng L, Slezak J, Bergstralh EJ, Cheville JC, Sweat S, Zincke H, et al. Dedifferentiation in the metastatic progres-sion of prostate carcinoma. Cancer 1999;86:657–63.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steinberg GD, Epstein JI, Piantadosi S, Walsh PC. Man-agement of stage D1 adenocarcinoma of the prostate: the Johns Hopkins experience 1974 to 1987. J Urol 1990;144:1425–32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng L, Bergstralh EJ, Cheville JC, Slezak J, Corica FA, Zincke H, et al. Cancer volume of lymph node metastasis predicts progression in prostate cancer. Am J Surg Pathol 1998;22:1491–500.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griebling TL, Ozkutlu D, See WA, Cohen MB. Prognostic implications of extracapsular extension of lymph node metastases in prostate cancer. Mod Pathol 1997;10:804–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Debras B, Guillonneau B, Bougaran J, Chambon E, Vallancien G. Prognostic significance of seminal vesicle invasion on the radical prostatectomy specimen. Rationale for seminal vesicle biopsies. Eur Urol 1998;33:271–7.
   Google Scholar
• Tefilli MV, Gheiler EL, Tiguert R, Banerjee M, Sakr W, Grignon DJ, et al. Prognostic indicators in patients with seminal vesicle involvement following radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 1998; 160:802–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein JI, Partin AW, Potter SR, Walsh PC. Adenocarci-noma of the prostate invading the seminal vesicle: prog-nostic stratification based on pathologic parameters. Urology 2000;56:283–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ohori M, Scardino PT, Lapin SL, Seale-Hawkins C, Link J, Wheeler TM. The mechanisms and prognostic significance of seminal vesicle involvement by prostate cancer. Am J Surg Pathol 1993;17:1252–61.
   Google Scholar
• D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Schultz D, Schnall M, Tomaszewski JE, et al. A multivariate analysis of clinical and pathological factors that predict for prostate specific antigen failure after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 1995;154:131–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein JI, Pizov G, Walsh PC. Correlation of pathologic findings with progression after radical retropubic prosta-tectomy. Cancer 1993;71:3582–93.
   Google Scholar
• Ohori M, Wheeler TM, Kattan MW, Goto Y, Scardino PT. Prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 1995;154:1818–24.
   Google Scholar
• Trapasso JG, deKernion JB, Smith RB, Dorey F. The incidence and significance of detectable levels of serum prostate specific antigen after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1994;152:1821–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salomon L, Anastasiadis AG, Johnson CW, McKiernan JM, Goluboff ET, Abbou CC, et al. Seminal vesicle involvement after radical prostatectomy: predicting risk factors for progression. Urology 2003;62:304–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sofer M, Savoie M, Kim SS, Civantos F, Soloway MS. Biochemical and pathological predictors of the recurrence of prostatic adenocarcinoma with seminal vesicle invasion. J Urol 2003;169:153–6.
   Google Scholar
• Potter SR, Mangold LA, Shue MJ, Taylor DC, Lecksell KL, Epstein JI, et al. Molecular and immunohistochemical staging of men with seminal vesicle invasion and negative pelvic lymph nodes at radical prostatectomy. Cancer 2000;89:2577–86.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ayala AG, Ro JY, Babaian R, Troncoso P, Grignon DJ. The prostatic capsule: does it exist? Its importance in the staging and treatment of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 1989;13:21–7.
   Google Scholar
• Jhaveri FM, Klein EA, Kupelian PA, Zippe C, Levin HS. Declining rates of extracapsular extension after radical prostatectomy: evidence for continued stage migration. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:3167–72.
   Google Scholar
• Han M, Partin AW, Piantadosi S, Epstein JI, Walsh PC. Era specific biochemical recurrence-free survival following ra-dical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2001;166:416–9.
   Google Scholar
• Ravery V, De la Taille A, Toublanc M, Boccon-Gibod L, Hermieu JF, Delmas V, et al. Prostate specimen reevalua-tion in patients with organ confined prostate cancer and postoperative biological recurrence. J Urol 1996; 155:1981–2.
   Google Scholar
• Villers A, McNeal JE, Redwine EA, Freiha FS, Stamey TA. The role of perineural space invasion in the local spread of prostatic adenocarcinoma. J Urol 1989;142:763–8.
   Google Scholar
• McNeal JE, Villers AA, Redwine EA, Freiha FS, Stamey TA. Capsular penetration in prostate cancer. Significance for natural history and treatment. Am J Surg Pathol 1990;14:240–7.
   Google Scholar
• Wheeler TM, Dillioglugil O, Kattan MW, Arakawa A, Soh S, Suyama K, et al. Clinical and pathological significance of the level and extent of capsular invasion in clinical stage T1-2 prostate cancer. Hum Pathol 1998;29:856–62.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stein A, deKernion JB, Smith RB, Dorey F, Patel H. Prostate specific antigen levels after radical prostatectomy in patients with organ confined and locally extensive prostate cancer. J Urol 1992;147:942–6.
   Google Scholar
• Epstein JI. Evaluation of radical prostatectomy capsular margins of resection. The significance of margins desig-nated as negative, closely approaching, and positive. Am J Surg Pathol 1990;14:626–32.
   Google Scholar
• Epstein JI, Sauvageot J. Do close but negative margins in radical prostatectomy specimens increase the risk of post-operative progression? J Urol 1997;157:241–3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ackerman DA, Barry JM, Wicklund RA, Olson N, Lowe BA. Analysis of risk factors associated with prostate cancer extension to the surgical margin and pelvic node metastasis at radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1993;150:1845–50.
   Google Scholar
• Rosen MA, Goldstone L, Lapin S, Wheeler T, Scardino PT. Frequency and location of extracapsular extension and positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy speci-mens. J Urol 1992;148:331–7.
   Google Scholar
• Stamey TA, Villers AA, McNeal JE, Link PC, Freiha FS. Positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy: impor-tance of the apical dissection. J Urol 1990;143:1166–72.
   Google Scholar
• Watson RB, Civantos F, Soloway MS. Positive surgical margins with radical prostatectomy: detailed pathological analysis and prognosis. Urology 1996;48:80–90.
   Google Scholar
• Weldon VE, Tavel FR, Neuwirth H, Cohen R. Patterns of positive specimen margins and detectable prostate specific antigen after radical perineal prostatectomy. J Urol 1995;153:1565–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blute ML, Bostwick DG, Bergstralh EJ, Slezak JM, Martin SK, Amling CL, et al. Anatomic site-specific positive margins in organ-confined prostate cancer and its impact on outcome after radical prostatectomy. Urology 1997;50:733–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salomon L, Anastasiadis AG, Levrel 0, Katz R, Saint F, De la Taille A, et al. Location of positive surgical margins after retropubic, perineal, and laparoscopic radical prostatect-omy for organ-confined prostate cancer. Urology 2003;61:386–90.
   Google Scholar
• Barocas DA, Han M, Epstein JI, Chan DY, Trock BJ, Walsh PC, et al. Does capsular incision at radical retropubic prostatectomy affect disease-free survival in otherwise organ-confined prostate cancer? Urology 2001;58:746–51.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guillonneau B, el Fettouh H, Baumert H, Cathelineau X, Doublet JD, Fromont G, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: oncological evaluation after 1,000 cases at Montsouris Institute. J Urol 2003;169:1261–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Babaian RJ, Troncoso P, Bhadkamkar VA, Johnston DA. Analysis of clinicopathologic factors predicting outcome after radical prostatectomy. Cancer 2001;91:1414–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freedland SJ, Aronson W, Presti JC Jr., Kane CJ, Terris MK, Elashoff D, et al. Should a positive surgical margin following radical prostatectomy be pathological stage T2 or T3? Results from the SEARCH database. J Urol 2003;169: 2142–6.
   Google Scholar
• Kupelian P, Katcher J, Levin H, Zippe C, Klein E. Correlation of clinical and pathologic factors with rising prostate-specific antigen profiles after radical prostatectomy alone for clinically localized prostate cancer. Urology 1996;48:249–60.
   Google Scholar
• Salomon L, Anastasiadis AG, Antiphon P, Levrel 0, Saint F, De la Taille A, et al. Prognostic consequences of the location of positive surgical margins in organ-confined prostate cancer. Urol hit 2003;70:291–6.
   Google Scholar
• Shah R, Bassily N, Wei J, Mucci NR, Montie JE, Sanda MG, et al. Benign prostatic glands at surgical margins of radical prostatectomy specimens: frequency and associated risk factors. Urology 2000;56:721–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Catalona WJ, Dresner SM. Nerve-sparing radical prosta-tectomy: extraprostatic tumor extension and preservation of erectile function. J Urol 1985;134:1149–51.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graefen M, Hammerer P, Michl U, Noldus J, Haese A, Henke RP, et al. Incidence of positive surgical margins after biopsy-selected nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. Urol-ogy 1998;51:437–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones EC. Resection margin status in radical retropubic prostatectomy specimens: relationship to type of operation, tumor size, tumor grade and local tumor extension. J Urol 1990;144:89–93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sofer M, Hamilton-Nelson KL, Schlesselman JJ, Soloway MS. Risk of positive margins and biochemical recurrence in relation to nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. J Chin Oncol 2002;20:1853–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wahle S, Reznicek M, Fallon B, Platz C, Williams R. Incidence of surgical margin involvement in various forms of radical prostatectomy. Urology 1990;36:23–6.
   Google Scholar
• Eggleston JC, Walsh PC. Radical prostatectomy with preservation of sexual function: pathological findings in the first 100 cases. J Urol 1985;134:1146–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI. Cancer control and quality of life following anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy: results at 10 years. J Urol 1994;152: 1831–6.
   Google Scholar
• Smith RC, Partin AW, Epstein JI, Brendler CB. Extended followup of the influence of wide excision of the neurovas-cular bundle(s) on prognosis in men with clinically localized prostate cancer and extensive capsular perforation. J Urol 1996;156:454–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stamey TA, Donaldson AN, Yemoto CE, McNeal JE, Sozen S, Gill H. Histological and clinical findings in 896 consecutive prostates treated only with radical retropubic prostatectomy: epidemiologic significance of annual changes. J Urol 1998;160:2412–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eastham JA, Kattan MW, Riedel E, Begg CB, Wheeler TM, Gerigk C, et al. Variations among individual surgeons in the rate of positive surgical margins in radical prosta-tectomy specimens. J Urol 2003;170:2292–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Potter SR, Miller MC, Mangold LA, Jones KA, Epstein JI, Veltri RW, et al. Genetically engineered neural networks for predicting prostate cancer progression after radical prosta-tectomy. Urology 1999;54:791–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boccon-Gibod L, Ravery V, Vordos D, Toublanc M, Delmas V, Boccon-Gibod L. Radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: the perineal approach increases the risk of surgically induced positive margins and capsular incisions. J Urol 1998;160:1383–5.
   Google Scholar
• Frazier HA, Robertson JE, Paulson DF. Radical prosta-tectomy: the pros and cons of the perineal versus retropubic approach. J Urol 1992;147:888–90.
   Google Scholar
• Korman HJ, Leu PB, Huang RR, Goldstein NS. A centralized comparison of radical perineal and retropubic prostatectomy specimens: is there a difference according to the surgical approach? J Urol 2002;168:991–4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown JA, Garlitz C, Gomella LG, Hubosky SG, Diamond SM, McGinnis D, et al. Pathologic comparison of laparo-scopic versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy speci-mens. Urology 2003;62:481–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• El Feel A, Davis JW, Deger S, Roigas J, Wille AH, Schnorr D, et al. Positive margins after laparoscopic radical prosta-tectomy: a prospective study of 100 cases performed by 4 different surgeons. Eur Urol 2003;43:622–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rassweiler J, Seemann O, Schulze M, Teber D, Hatzinger M, Frede T. Laparoscopic versus open radical prostatect-omy: a comparative study at a single institution. J Urol 2003;169:1689–93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Labrie F, Cusan L, Gomez JL, Diamond P, Suburu R, Lemay M, et al. Down-staging of early-stage prostate-cancer before radical prostatectomy-the first randomized trial of neoadjuvant combination therapy with flutamide and a luteinizing-hormone-releasing hormone agonist. Urology 1994;44:29–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soloway MS, Sharifi R, Wajsman Z, McLeod D, Wood DP Jr., Puras-Baez A. Randomized prospective study compar-ing radical prostatectomy alone versus radical prostatect-omy preceded by androgen blockade in clinical stage B2 (T2bNxMO) prostate cancer. The Lupron Depot Neoadjuvant Prostate Cancer Study Group. J Urol 1995;154: 424–8.
   Google Scholar
• Vailancourt L, Ttu B, Fradet Y, Dupont A, Gomez J, Cusan L, et al. Effect of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (combined androgen blockade) on normal prostate and prostatic carcinoma. A randomized study. Am J Surg Pathol 1996;20:86–93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soloway MS, Pareek K, Sharifi R, Wajsman Z, McLeod D, Wood DP Jr., et al. Neoadjuvant androgen ablation before radical prostatectomy in cT2bNx1\'lo prostate cancer: 5-year results. J Urol 2002;167: 112–6.
   Google Scholar
• Fowler JE Jr., Pandey P, Bigler SA, Yee DT, Kolski JM. Trends in diagnosis of stage Tla-b prostate cancer. J Urol 1997;158:1849–52.
   Google Scholar
• Soh S, Kattan MW, Berkman S, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT. Has there been a recent shift in the pathological features and prognosis of patients treated with radical prostatectomy? J Urol 1997;157:2212–8.
   Google Scholar
• Christensen WN, Partin AW, Walsh PC, Epstein JI. Pathologic findings in clinical stage A2 prostate cancer. Relation of tumor volume, grade, and location to patholo-gic stage. Cancer 1990;65:1021–7.
   Google Scholar
• Voges GE, McNeal JE, Redwine EA, Freiha FS, Stamey TA. The predictive significance of substaging stage A prostate cancer (Al versus A2) for volume and grade of total cancer in the prostate. J Urol 1992;147: 858–63.
   Google Scholar
• Cheng L, Darson MF, Bergstralh EJ, Slezak J, Myers RP, Bostwick DG. Correlation of margin status and extrapro-static extension with progression of prostate carcinoma. Cancer 1999;86:1775–82.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Brendler CB, Radical prostatectomy for impalpable prostate cancer: the Johns Hopkins experi-ence with tumors found on transurethral resection (stages TlA and T1B) and on needle biopsy (stage Ti C). J Urol 1994;152:1721–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jack GS, Cookson MS, Coffey CS, Vader V, Roberts RL, Chang SS, et al. Pathological parameters of radical prosta-tectomy for clinical stages Tic versus T2 prostate adeno-carcinoma: decreased pathological stage and increased detection of transition zone tumors. J Urol 2002; 168:519–24.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yossepowitch O, Sircar K, Scardino PT, Ohori M, Kattan MW, Wheeler TM, et al. Bladder neck involvement in pathological stage pT4 radical prostatectomy specimens is not an independent prognostic factor. J Urol 2002; 168:2011–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aydin H, Tsuzuki T, Hernandez D, Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI. Positive proximal (bladder neck) margin at radical prostatectomy confers greater risk of biochemical progression. Urology 2004;64:551–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Obek C, Sadek S, Lai S, Civantos F, Rubinowicz D, Soloway MS. Positive surgical margins with radical retro-pubic prostatectomy: anatomic site-specific pathologic analysis and impact on prognosis. Urology 1999;54:682–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cornum R, Peretsman SJ, Thompson IM. Influence of surgical approach on cancer control following radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol 1996;2:198–201.
   Google Scholar
• Cangiano TG, Litwin MS, Naitoh J, Dorey F, deKernion JB. Intraoperative frozen section monitoring of nerve sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 1999; 162:655–8.
   Google Scholar
• Goharderakhshan RZ, Sudilovsky D, Carroll LA, Grossfeld GD, Marn R, Carroll PR. Utility of intraoperative frozen section analysis of surgical margins in region of neurovas-cular bundles at radical prostatectomy. Urology 2002; 59:709–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shah O, Melamed J, Lepor H. Analysis of apical soft tissue margins during radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 2001;165:1943–8.
   Google Scholar
• Fromont G, Baumert H, Cathelineau X, Rozet F, Validire P, Vallancien G. Intraoperative frozen section analysis during nerve sparing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: feasibility study. J Urol 2003;170:1843–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ward JF, Sands JP, Nowacki M, Amling CL. Malignant cytological washings from prostate specimens: an indepen-dent predictor of biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2001;165:469–73.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Theodorescu D, Frierson HF Jr., Sikes RA. Molecular determination of surgical margins using fossa biopsies at radical prostatectomy, J Urol 1999;161:1442–8.
   Google Scholar
• Epstein JI, Partin AW, Sauvageot J, Walsh PC. Prediction of progression following radical prostatectomy. A multivariate analysis of 721 men with long-term follow-up. Am J Surg Pathol 1996;20:286–92.
   Google Scholar
• Van den Ouden D, Hop WC, Kranse R, Schroder FH. Tumour control according to pathological variables in patients treated by radical prostatectomy for clinically localized carcinoma of the prostate. Br J Urol 1997; 79:203–11.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Loughlin K, Schultz D, Schnall M, et al. An analysis of the time course of postoperative prostate-specific antigen failure in patients with positive surgical margins: implications on the use of adjuvant therapy. Urology 1996;47:538–47.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fesseha T, Sakr W, Grignon D, Banerjee M, Wood DP Jr., Pontes JE. Prognostic implications of a positive apical margin in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 1997;158:2176–9.
   Google Scholar
• Ohori M, Abbas F, Wheeler TM, Kattan MW, Scardino PT, Lerner SP. Pathological features and prognostic significance of prostate cancer in the apical section deter-mined by whole mount histology. J Urol 1999;161:500–4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han M, Partin AW, Pound CR, Epstein JI, Walsh PC. Long-term biochemical disease-free and cancer-specific survival following anatomic radical retropubic prostatect-omy. The 15-year Johns Hopkins experience. Urol Chin North Am 2001;28: 555–65.
   Google Scholar
• Chan TY, Partin AW, Walsh PC, Epstein JI. Prognostic significance of Gleason score 3+4 versus Gleason score 4 + 3 tumor at radical prostatectomy. Urology 2000;56:823–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNeal JE. Cancer volume and site of origin of adeno-carcinoma in the prostate: relationship to local and distant spread. Hum Pathol 1992;23:258–66.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tefilli MV, Gheiler EL, Tiguert R, Sakr W, Grignon DJ, Banerjee M, et al. Should Gleason score 7 prostate cancer be considered a unique grade category? Urology 1999;53:372–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oefelein MG, Smith ND, Grayhack JT, Schaeffer AJ, McVary KT. Long-term results of radical retropubic prostatectomy in men with high grade carcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 1997;158:1460–5.
   Google Scholar
• Sakr WA, Tefilli MV, Grignon DJ, Banerjee M, Dey J, Gheiler EL, et al. Gleason score 7 prostate cancer: a heterogeneous entity? Correlation with pathologic para-meters and disease-free survival. Urology 2000;56:730–4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han M, Partin AW, Zahurak M, Piantadosi S, Epstein JI, Walsh PC. Biochemical (prostate specific antigen) recur-rence probability following radical prostatectomy for clini-cally localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2003;169:517–23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oefelein MG, Grayhack JT, McVary KT. Survival after radical retropubic prostatectomy of men with clinically localized high grade carcinoma of the prostate. Cancer 1995;76:2535–42.
   Google Scholar
• Ohori M, Goad JR, Wheeler TM, Eastham JA, Thompson TC, Scardino PT. Can radical prostatectomy alter the progression of poorly differentiated prostate cancer? J Urol 1994;152:1843–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perrotti M, Rabbani F, Russo P, Solomon MC, Fair WR. Early prostate cancer detection and potential for surgical cure in men with poorly differentiated tumors. Urology 1998;52:106–10.
   Google Scholar
• Mian BM, Troncoso P, Okihara K, Bhadkamkar V, Johnston D, Reyes AO, et al. Outcome of patients with Gleason score 8 or higher prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy alone. J Urol 2002;167:1675–80.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rioux-Leclercq NC, Chan DY, Epstein JI. Prediction of outcome after radical prostatectomy in men with organ-confined Gleason score 8 to 10 adenocarcinoma. Urology 2002;60: 666–9.
   Google Scholar
• Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Yemoto CM, Sigal BM, Johnstone IM. Biological determinants of cancer progression in men with prostate cancer. JANIA 1999;281:1395–400.
   Google Scholar
• Allsbrook WC Jr., Mangold KA, Yang X, Epstein J. The Gleason grading system: an overview. J Urol Pathol 1999;10:141–57.
   Google Scholar
• Aihara M, Wheeler TM, Ohori M, Scardino PT. Hetero-geneity of prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy speci-mens. Urology 1994;43:60–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deshmukh N, Foster CS. Grading prostate cancer. In: Foster CS, Bostwick DG, editors. Pathology of the prostate. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders; 1997. p. 191–227.
   Google Scholar
• Pan CC, Potter SR, Partin AW, Epstein JI, The prognostic significance of tertiary Gleason patterns of higher grade in radical prostatectomy specimens: a proposal to modify the Gleason grading system. Am J Surg Pathol 2000;24:563–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mosse CA, Magi-Galluzzi C, Tsuzuki T, Epstein JI. The prognostic significance of tertiary Gleason pattern 5 in radical prostatectomy specimens. Am J Surg Pathol 2004; 28:394–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen ME, Johnston D, Reyes AO, Soto CP, Babaian RJ, Troncoso P. A streamlined three-dimensional volume estimation method accurately classifies prostate tumors by volume. Am J Surg Pathol 2003;27:1291–301.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Humphrey PA, Vollmer RT. Percentage carcinoma as a measure of prostatic tumor size in radical prostatectomy tissues. Mod Pathol 1997;10:326–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noguchi M, Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Yemoto CE. Assess-ment of morphometric measurements of prostate carci-noma volume. Cancer 2000;89:1056–64.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renshaw AA, Chang H, D'Amico AV. Estimation of tumor volume in radical prostatectomy specimens in routine clinical practice. Am J Chin Pathol 1997;107:704–8.
   Google Scholar
• Renshaw AA, Richie JP, Loughlin KR, Jiroutek M, Chung A, D'Amico AV. Maximum diameter of prostatic carcinoma is a simple, inexpensive, and independent predictor of prostate-specific antigen failure in radical prostatectomy specimens. Validation in a cohort of 434 patients. Am J Chin Pathol 1999;111: 641–4.
   Google Scholar
• Wise AM, Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Clayton JL. Morpho-logic and clinical significance of multifocal prostate cancers in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology 2002;60:264–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carvalhal GF, Humphrey PA, Thorson P, Yan Y, Ramos CG, Catalona WJ. Visual estimate of the percentage of carcinoma is an independent predictor of prostate carci-noma recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Cancer 2000; 89:1308–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramos CG, Roehl KA, Antenor JA, Humphrey PA, Catalona WJ. Percent carcinoma in prostatectomy speci-men is associated with risk of recurrence after radical prostatectomy in patients with pathologically organ con-fined prostate cancer. J Urol 2004;172:137–40.
   Google Scholar
• Manoharan M, Civantos F, Kim SS, Gomez P, Soloway MS. Visual estimate of percent of carcinoma predicts recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2003; 170:1194–8.
   Google Scholar
• Epstein JI, Carmichael M, Partin AW, Walsh PC. Is tumor volume an independent predictor of progression following radical prostatectomy? A multivariate analysis of 185 clinical stage B adenocarcinomas of the prostate with 5 years of followup. J Urol 1993;149:1478–81.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palisaan RJ, Graefen M, Karakiewicz PI, Hammerer PG, Huland E, Haese A, et al. Assessment of clinical and pathologic characteristics predisposing to disease recur-rence following radical prostatectomy in men with patho-logically organ-confined prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2002;41:155–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salomon L, Levrel O, Anastasiadis AG, Irani J, De la Taille A, Saint F, et al. Prognostic significance of tumor volume after radical prostatectomy: a multivariate analysis of pathological prognostic factors. Eur Urol 2003;43:39–44.
   Google Scholar
• DiGiuseppe JA, Sauvageot J, Epstein JI. Increasing inci-dence of minimal residual cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens. Am J Surg Pathol 1997;21:174–8.
   Google Scholar
• Augustin H, Hammerer PG, Blonski J, Graefen M, Palisaar J, Daghofer F, et al. Zonal location of prostate cancer: significance for disease-free survival after radical prosta-tectomy? Urology 2003;62:79–85.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De la Taille A, Rubin MA, Buttyan R, Olsson CA, Bagiella E, Burchardt M, et al. Is microvascular invasion on radical prostatectomy specimens a useful predictor of PSA recur-rence for prostate cancer patients? Eur Urol 2000;38:79–84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ito K, Nakashima J, Mukai M, Asakura H, Ohigashi T, Saito S, et al. Prognostic implication of microvascular invasion in biochemical failure in patients treated with radical prostatectomy. Urol Int 2003;70:297–302.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNeal JE, Yemoto CE. Significance of demonstrable vascular space invasion for the progression of prostatic adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 1996;20:1351–60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bahnson RR, Dresner SM, Gooding W, Becich MJ. Incidence and prognostic significance of lymphatic and vascular invasion in radical prostatectomy specimens. Prostate 1989;15:149–55.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herman CM, Wilcox GE, Kattan MW, Scardino PT, Wheeler TM. Lymphovascular invasion as a predictor of disease progression in prostate cancer. Am J Surg Pathol 2000;24:859–63.
   Google Scholar
• Ravery V, Boccon-Gibod LA, Meulemans A, Dauge-Geffroy MC, Toublanc M, Boccon-Gibod L. Predictive value of pathological features for progression after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 1994;26:197–201.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Endrizzi J, Seay T. The relationship between early bio-chemical failure and perineural invasion in pathological T2 prostate cancer. BJU Int 2000;85:696–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maru N, Ohori M, Kattan MW, Scardino PT, Wheeler TM. Prognostic significance of the diameter of perineural invasion in radical prostatectomy specimens. Hum Pathol 2001;32:828–33.
   Google Scholar
• Bauer JJ, Connelly RR, Seterhenn IA, Deausen J, Srivas-tava S, McLeod DG, et al. Biostatistical modeling using traditional preoperative and pathological prognostic vari-ables in the selection of men at high risk for disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 1998;159:929–33.
   Google Scholar
• Gettman MT, Bergstralh EJ, Blute M, Zincke H, Bostwick DG. Prediction of patient outcome in pathologic stage T2 adenocarcinoma of the prostate: lack of significance for microvessel density analysis. Urology 1998;51: 79–85.
   Google Scholar
• Hawkins CA, Bergstralh EJ, Lieber MM, Zincke H. Influence of DNA ploidy and adjuvant treatment on progression and survival in patients with pathologic stage T3 (PT3) prostate cancer after radical retropubic prosta-tectomy. Urology 1995;46:356–64.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lerner SE, Blute ML, Bergstralh EJ, Bostwick DG, Eickholt JT, Zincke H. Analysis of risk factors for progres-sion in patients with pathologically confined prostate cancers after radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 1996;156:137–43.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hull GW, Rabbani F, Abbas F, Wheeler TM, Kattan MW, Scardino PT. Cancer control with radical prostatectomy alone in 1,000 consecutive patients. J Urol 2002;167:528–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graefen M, Karakiewicz PI, Cagiannos I, Klein E, Kupe-lian PA, Quinn DI, et al. Validation study of the accuracy of a postoperative nomogram for recurrence after radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:951 —6.
   Google Scholar
• Kattan MW, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT. Postoperative nomogram for disease recurrence after radical prostatect-omy for prostate cancer. J Chin Oncol 1999;17:1499–507.
   Google Scholar
• Montironi R, Mazzucchelli R, Kwast T. Morphological assessment of radical prostatectomy specimens. A protocol with clinical relevance. Virchows Arch 2003;442:211–7.
   Google Scholar
• Montironi R, van der Kwast T, Boccon-Gibod L, Bono AV, Boccon-Gibod L. Handling and pathology reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens. Eur Urol 2003;44:626–36.
   Google Scholar
• Ross JS, Sheehan CE, Dolen EM, Kallakury BV. Morpho-logic and molecular prognostic markers in prostate cancer. Adv Anat Pathol 2002;9:115–28.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gettman MT, Pacelli A, Slezak J, Bergstralh EJ, Blute M, Zincke H, et al. Role of microvessel density in predicting recurrence in pathologic Stage T3 prostatic adenocarci-noma. Urology 1999;54:479–85.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seay TM, Blute ML, Zincke H. Long-term outcome in patients with pTxN+ adenocarcinoma of prostate treated with radical prostatectomy and early androgen ablation. J Urol 1998;159:357–64.
   Google Scholar
• Brown JA, Slezak JM, Lieber MM, Jenkins RB. Fluores-cence in situ hybridization aneuploidy as a predictor of clinical disease recurrence and prostate-specific antigen level 3 years after radical prostatectomy. Mayo Chin Proc 1999;74:1214–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carmichael MJ, Veltri RW, Partin AW, Miller MC, Walsh PC, Epstein JI. Deoxyribonucleic acid ploidy analysis as a predictor of recurrence following radical prostatectomy for stage T2 disease. J Urol 1995;153:1015–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Di Silverio F, D'Eramo G, Buscarini M, Sciarra A, Casale P, Di Nicola S, et al. DNA ploidy, Gleason score, pathological stage and serum PSA levels as predictors of disease-free survival in C-D1 prostatic cancer patients submitted to radical retropubic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 1996;30:316–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee SE, Currin SM, Paulson DF, Walther PJ. Flow cytometric determination of ploidy in prostatic adenocarci-noma: a comparison with seminal vesicle involvement and histopathological grading as a predictor of clinical recur-rence. J Urol 1988;140:769–74.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ross JS, Sheehan CE, Hayner-Buchan AM, Ambros RA, Kallakury BV, Kaufman RP Jr., et al. Prognostic signifi-cance of HER-2/neu gene amplification status by fluores-cence in situ hybridization of prostate carcinoma. Cancer 1997;79: 2162–70.
   Google Scholar
• Veltri RW, Partin AW, Epstein JE, Marley GM, Miller CM, Singer DS, et al. Quantitative nuclear morphometry, Markovian texture descriptors, and DNA content captured on a CAS-200 Image analysis system, combined with PCNA and HER-2/neu immunohistochemistry for predic-tion of prostate cancer progression. J Cell Biochem Suppl 1994;19:249 —58.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Voges GE, Eigner EB, Ross W, Sussman H, Stockle M, Freiha FS, et al. Pathologic parameters and flow cytometric ploidy analysis in predicting recurrence in carcinoma of the prostate. Eur Urol 1993;24:132–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wirth MP, Muller HA, Manseck A, Muller J, Frohmuller HG. Value of nuclear DNA ploidy patterns in patients with prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 1991;20:248–52.
   Google Scholar
• Humphrey PA, Walther PJ, Currin SM, Vollmer RT. Histologic grade, DNA ploidy, and intraglandular tumor extent as indicators of tumor progression of clinical stage B prostatic carcinoma. A direct comparison. Am J Surg Pathol 1991;15:1165–70.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones EC, McNeal J, Bruchovsky N, de Jong G. DNA content in prostatic adenocarcinoma. A flow cytometry study of the predictive value of aneuploidy for tumor volume, percentage Gleason grade 4 and 5, and lymph node metastases. Cancer 1990;66: 752–7.
   Google Scholar
• Ring KS, Karp FS, Olsson CA, O'Toole K, Bixon R, Benson MC. Flow cytometric analysis of localized adeno- carcinoma of the prostate: the use of archival DNA analysis in conjunction with pathological grading to predict clinical outcome following radical retropubic prostatectomy. Pros-tate 1990;17:155–64.
   Google Scholar
• Ritchie AW, Dorey F, Layfield LJ, Hannah J, Lovrekovich H, deKernion JB. Relationship of DNA content to con-ventional prognostic factors in clinically localised carci-noma of the prostate. Br J Urol 1988;62:245–60.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Strohmeyer D, Rossing C, Strauss F, Bauerfeind A, Kaufmann 0, Loening S. Tumor angiogenesis is associated with progression after radical prostatectomy in pT2/pT3 prostate cancer. Prostate 2000;42: 26–33.
   Google Scholar
• Silberman MA, Partin AW, Veltri RW, Epstein JI. Tumor angiogenesis correlates with progression after radical pros-tatectomy but not with pathologic stage in Gleason sum 5 to 7 adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Cancer 1997;79:772–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bettencourt MC, Bauer JJ, Sesterhenn IA, Connelly RR, Moul JW. CD34 immunohistochemical assessment of angiogenesis as a prognostic marker for prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1998;160: 459–65.
   Google Scholar
• De la Taille A, Katz AE, Bagiella E, Buttyan R, Sharir S, Olsson CA, et al. Microvessel density as a predictor of PSA recurrence after radical prostatectomy. A comparison of CD34 and CD31. Am J Chin Pathol 2000;113:555–62.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krupski T, Petroni GR, Frierson HF Jr., Theodorescu JU. Microvessel density, p53, retinoblastoma, and chromogra-nin A immunohistochemistry as predictors of disease-specific survival following radical prostatectomy for carci-noma of the prostate. Urology 2000;55: 743–9.
   Google Scholar
• Rubin MA, Buyyounouski M, Bagiella E, Shark S, Neugut A, Benson M, et al. Microvessel density in prostate cancer: lack of correlation with tumor grade, pathologic stage, and clinical outcome. Urology 1999;53:542–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bettencourt MC, Bauer JJ, Sesterhenn IA, Mostofi FK, McLeod DG, Moul JW. Ki-67 expression is a prognostic marker of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prosta-tectomy. J Urol 1996;156:1064–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng L, Pisansky TM, Sebo TJ, Leibovich BC, Ramnani DM, Weaver AL, et al. Cell proliferation in prostate cancer patients with lymph node metastasis: a marker for progres-sion. Chin Cancer Res 1999;5:2820–3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coetzee LJ, Layfield LJ, Hars V, Paulson DF. Proliferative index determination in prostatic carcinoma tissue: is there any additional prognostic value greater than that of Gleason score, ploidy and pathological stage? J Urol 1997;157:214–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stapleton AM, Zbell P, Kattan MW, Yang G, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT, et al. Assessment of the biologic markers p53, Ki-67, and apoptotic index as predictive indicators of prostate carcinoma recurrence after surgery. Cancer 1998;82:168–75.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vis AN, Noordzij MA, Fitoz K, Wildhagen ME, Schroder FH, van der Kwast TH. Prognostic value of cell cycle proteins p27(kip 1) and MIB-1, and the cell adhesion protein CD44s in surgically treated patients with prostate cancer. J Urol 2000;164: 2156–61.
   Google Scholar
• Bubendorf L, Sauter G, Moch H, Schmid HP, Gasser TC, Jordan P, et al. Ki67 labelling index: an independent predictor of progression in prostate cancer treated by radical prostatectomy. J Pathol 1996;178:437–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keshgegian AA, Johnston E, Cnaan A. Bc1-2 oncoprotein positivity and high MIB-1 (Ki-67) proliferative rate are independent predictive markers for recurrence in prostate carcinoma. Am J Chin Pathol 1998;110: 443–9.
   Google Scholar
• Abrahamsson PA, Cockett AT, di Sant'Agnese PA. Prog-nostic significance of neuroendocrine differentiation in clinically localized prostatic carcinoma. Prostate Suppl 1998;8:37–42.
   Google Scholar
• Theodorescu D, Broder SR, Boyd JC, Mills SE, Frierson HF Jr. Cathepsin D and chromogranin A as predictors of long term disease specific survival after radical prostatect-omy for localized carcinoma of the prostate. Cancer 1997;80:2109–19.
   Google Scholar
• Ahlegren G, Pedersen K, Lundberg S, Aus G, Hugosson J, Abrahamsson P. Neuroendocrine differentiation is not prognostic of failure after radical prostatectomy but corre-lates with tumor volume. Urology 2000;56:1011–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen MK, Arber DA, Coffield KS, Keegan GT, McClin-tock J, Speights VO Jr. Neuroendocrine differentiation in prostatic adenocarcinoma and its relationship to tumor progression. Cancer 1994;74:1899–903.
   Google Scholar
• Noordzij MA, van der Kwast TH, van Steenbrugge GJ, Hop WJ, Schroder FH. The prognostic influence of neuroendocrine cells in prostate cancer: results of a long-term follow-up study with patients treated by radical prostatectomy. hit J Cancer 1995;62:252–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinstein MH, Partin AW, Veltri RW, Epstein JI. Neu-roendocrine differentiation in prostate cancer: enhanced prediction of progression after radical prostatectomy. Hum Pathol 1996;27:683–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauer JJ, Sesterhenn IA, Mostofi FK, McLeod DG, Srivastava S, Moul JW. Elevated levels of apoptosis regulator proteins p53 and bc1-2 are independent prognos-tic biomarkers in surgically treated clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 1996;156:1511–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osman I, Drobnjak M, Fazzari M, Ferrara J, Scher HI, Cordon-Cardo C. Inactivation of the p53 pathway in prostate cancer: impact on tumor progression. Chin Cancer Res 1999;5: 2082–8.
   Google Scholar
• Theodorescu D, Broder SR, Boyd JC, Mills SE, Frierson HF Jr. p53, bc1-2 and retinoblastoma proteins as long-term prognostic markers in localized carcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 1997;158: 131–7.
   Google Scholar
• Kuczyk MA, Serth J, Bokemeyer C, Machtens S, Minssen A, Bathke W, et al. The prognostic value of p53 for long-term and recurrence-free survival following radical prosta-tectomy. Eur J Cancer 1998;34:679–86.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brewster SF, Oxley JD, Trivella M, Abbott CD, Gillatt DA. Preoperative p53, bc1-2, CD44 and E-cadherin immuno-histochemistry as predictors of biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1999;161: 1238–43.
   Google Scholar
• Leibovich BC, Cheng L, Weaver AL, Myers RP, Bostwick DG. Outcome prediction with p53 immunostaining after radical prostatectomy in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer. J Urol 2000;163: 1756–60.
   Google Scholar
• Stricker HJ, Jay JK, Linden MD, Tamboli P, Amin MB. Determining prognosis of clinically localized prostate cancer by immunohistochemical detection of mutant p53. Urology 1996;47: 366–9.
   Google Scholar
• Cheng L, Leibovich BC, Bergstralh EJ, Scherer BG, Pacelli A, Ramnani DM, et al. p53 alteration in regional lymph node metastases from prostate carcinoma: a marker for progression? Cancer 1999;85:2455–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lacombe L, Maillette A, Meyer F, Veilleux C, Moore L, Fradet Y. Expression of p21 predicts PSA failure in locally advanced prostate cancer treated by prostatectomy. hit J Cancer 2001;95:135–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarkar FH, Li Y, Sakr WA, Grignon DJ, Madan SS, Wood DP Jr., et al. Relationship of p21(WAF1) expression with disease-free survival and biochemical recurrence in prostate adenocarcinomas (PCa). Prostate 1999;40: 256–60.
   Google Scholar
• Cote RJ, Shi Y, Groshen S, Feng AC, Cordon-Cardo C, Skinner D, et al. Association of p27Kip 1 levels with recurrence and survival in patients with stage C prostate carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90: 916–20.
   Google Scholar
• Kuczyk M, Machtens S, Hradil K, Schubach J, Christian W, Knuchel R, et al. Predictive value of decreased p27Kipl protein expression for the recurrence-free and long-term survival of prostate cancer patients. Br J Cancer 1999;81:1052–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang RM, Naitoh J, Murphy M, Wang HJ, Phillipson J, deKernion JB, et al. Low p27 expression predicts poor disease-free survival in patients with prostate cancer. J Urol 1998;159:941–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsihlias J, Kapusta LR, DeBoer G, Morava-Protzner I, Zbieranowski I, Bhattacharya N, et al. Loss of cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor p27Kip 1 is a novel prognostic factor in localized human prostate adenocarcinoma. Cancer Res 1998;58: 542–8.
   Google Scholar
• Cheville JC, Lloyd RV, Sebo TJ, Cheng L, Erickson L, Bostwick DG, et al. Expression of p27kip 1 in prostatic adenocarcinoma. Mod Pathol 1998;11:324–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erdamar S, Yang G, Harper JW, Lu X, Kattan MW, Thompson TC, et al. Levels of expression of p27KIP1 protein in human prostate and prostate cancer: an im-munohistochemical analysis. Mod Pathol 1999;12:751–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Umbas R, Isaacs WB, Bringuier PP, Schaafsma HE, Karthaus HF, Oosterhof GO, et al. Decreased E-cadherin expression is associated with poor prognosis in patients with prostate cancer. Cancer Res 1994;54:3929–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuczyk M, Serth J, Machtens S, Bokemeyer C, Bathke W, Stief C, et al. Expression of E-cadherin in primary prostate cancer: correlation with clinical features. Br J Urol 1998;81:406–12.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kallakury By, Sheehan CE, Ambros RA, Fisher HA, Kaufman RP Jr., Muraca PJ, et al. Correlation of p34cdc2 cyclin-dependent kinase overexpression, CD44s downregulation, and HER-2/neu oncogene amplification with recurrence in prostatic adenocarcinomas. J Chin Oncol 1998;16: 1302–9.
   Google Scholar
• Sweat SD, Pacelli A, Bergstralh EJ, Slezak JM, Cheng L, Bostwick DG. Androgen receptor expression in prostate cancer lymph node metastases is predictive of outcome after surgery. J Urol 1999;161:1233–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammond ME, Sause WT, Martz KL, Pilepich MV, Asbell SO, Rubin P, et al. Correlation of prostate-specific acid phosphatase and prostate-specific antigen immunocyto-chemistry with survival in prostate carcinoma. Cancer 1989;63:461–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khan MA, Walsh PC, Miller MC, Bales WD, Epstein JI, Mangold LA, et al. Quantitative alterations in nuclear structure predict prostate carcinoma distant metastasis and death in men with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Cancer 2003;98:2583–91.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Partin AW, Steinberg GD, Pitcock RV, Wu L, Piantadosi S, Coffey DS, et al. Use of nuclear morphometry, gleason histologic scoring, clinical stage, and age to predict disease-free survival among patients with prostate cancer. Cancer 1992;70:161–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khan MA, Walsh PC, Miller MC, Bales WD, Epstein JI, Mangold LA, et al. Quantitative alterations in nuclear structure predict prostate carcinoma distant metastasis and death in men with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Cancer 2003;98:2583–91.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veltri RW, Miller MC, Partin AW, Coffey DS, Epstein JI. Ability to predict biochemical progression using Gleason score and a computer-generated quantitative nuclear grade derived from cancer cell nuclei. Urology 1996;48:685–91.
   Google Scholar
• Fujikawa K, Itoh T, Nishio Y, Miyakawa M, Sasaki M. The role of volume-weighted mean nuclear volume in predicting disease outcome in patients with prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy. APMIS 1999;107:773–8.
   Google Scholar
• Van der Poel HG, Oosterhof GO, Schaafsma HE, Deb-ruyne FM, Schalken JA. Intratumoral nuclear morphologic heterogeneity in prostate cancer. Urology 1997;49:652–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vesalainen S, Lipponen P, Talja M, Kasurinen J, Syrjanen K. Nuclear morphometry is of independent prognostic value only in Ti prostatic adenocarcinomas. Prostate 1995;27:110–7.
   Google Scholar
• Bostwick DG, Grignon DJ, Hammond ME, Amin MB, Cohen M, Crawford D, et al. Prognostic factors in prostate cancer. College of American Pathologists Consensus State-ment 1999. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000;124:995–1000.
   Google Scholar
• Bostwick DG, Foster CS, Algaba F, Hutter RVP, Montir-oni R, Mostofi FK, et al. Prostate tissue factors. In: Murphy G, Denis L, Khoury S, Partin A, Denis L, editors. Prostate cancer. Second International Consultation on Prostate Cancer. Plymouth, UK Plymbridge Distributors Ltd; 2000. p. 162–201.
   Google Scholar