Gleason scoring: a comparison of classical and modified (International Society of Urological Pathology) criteria using nadir PSA as a clinical end point

References

• Gleason DF. Classification of prostate carcinoma. Cancer Chemother Rep 1966; 50: 125–128.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gleason DF, Mellinger GT, the Veterans Administration Cooperative Urological Research Group. Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol 1974; 11: 58–64.
   Google Scholar
• Lamb DS, Slaney D, Smart R, et al Prostate cancer: the new evidence base for diagnosis and treatment. Pathology 2007; 39: 537–544.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Lamb DS. Gleason grading: consensus and controversy. Pathology 2009; 41: 613–614.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amin M, Boccon-Gibod L, Egevad L, et al Prognostic and predictive factors and reporting of prostatic carcinoma in prostatic needle biopsy specimens. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2005; 39: 20–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein JI, Alsbrook WC, Amin MB, et al The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005; 29: 1228–1242.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helpap B, Egevad L. The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Virchows Arch 2006; 449: 622–627.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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 prostate carcinoma in needle biopsies. J Urol 2008; 180: 548–553.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuroiwa K, Uchino H, Yokomizo A, Naito S. Impact of reporting rules of biopsy Gleason score for prostate cancer. J Clin Pathol 2009; 62: 260–263.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helpap B, Egevad L. Correlation of modified Gleason grading of prostate cancer with age, serum prostate specific antigen and tumor extent in needle biopsy specimens. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 2008; 30: 133–138.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Naito S, Kuroiwa K, Kinukawa N, et al Validation of Partin tables and development of a preoperative nomogram for Japanese patients with clinically localized prostate cancer using 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology consensus on Gleason grading: data from the Clinicopathological Research Group for Localized Prostate Cancer. J Urol 2008; 180: 904–910.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Haworth A, Kearvell R, Greer PB, et al Assuring high quality treatment delivery in clinical trials – Results from the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group (TROG) study 03.04 ‘RADAR’ set-up accuracy study. Radiotherapy Oncol 2009; 90: 299–306.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lamb DS, Denham JW, Joseph D, et al A comparison of the prognostic value of early PSA based variables following external beam radiotherapy, with or without preceding androgen deprivation: analysis of data from the TROG 96.01 randomized trial. Int J Radiation Oncology Biol Phys 2010; Mar 27: (Epub ahead of print).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Delahunt B, Nacey JN. Renal cell carcinoma. Histological indicators of prognosis. Pathology 1987; 19: 258–263.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrell FE, Lee KL, Mark DB. Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med 1996; 15: 361–387.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kunz GM Jr, Epstein JI. Should each core with prostate cancer be assigned a separate Gleason score? Hum Pathol 2003; 34: 911–914.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Crawford DE. Understanding the epidemiology, natural history, and key pathways involved in prostate cancer. Urology 2009; 73 (Suppl 5A): 4–10.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Denham JW, Steigler A, Wilcox C, et al Time to biochemical failure and prostate-specific antigen doubling time as surrogates for prostate cancer-specific mortality: evidence from the TROG 96.01 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2008; 9: 1058–1068.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar