How significant is upgrade in Gleason score between prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology while discussing less invasive treatment options?

References

• Gleason DF. Histologic grading of prostate cancer: a perspective. Hum Pathol 1992;23:273–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gleason DF. Histologic grading of prostatic carcinoma. In Bostwick DG, editor. Pathology of the prostate. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1990. p 83–93.
   Google Scholar
• Bostwick DG. Gleason grading of prostatic needle biopsies. Correlation with grade in 316 matched prostatectomies. Am J Surg Pathol 1994;18:796–803.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• King CR. Patterns of prostate cancer biopsy grading: trends and clinical implications. Int J Cancer 2000;90:305–11.
   Google Scholar
• Pinthus JH, Witkos M, Fleshner NE, Sweet J, Evans A, Jewett MA, et al. Prostate cancers scored as Gleason 6 on prostate biopsy are frequently Gleason 7 tumors at radical prostatectomy: implication on outcome. J Urol 2006;176:979–84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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
• Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Yemoto CM, Sigal BM, Johnstone IM. Biological determinants of cancer progression in men with prostate cancer. JAMA 1999;281:1395–400.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pan CC, Potter SR, Partin AE, 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
• Moussa AS, Li J, Soriano M, Klein EA, Dong F, Jones JS. Prostate biopsy clinical and pathological variables thatpredict significant grading changes in patients with intermediate and high grade prostate cancer. BJU Int 2009;103:43–8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tilki D, Schlenker B, John M, Buchner A, Stanislaus P, Gratzke C, et al. Clinical and pathologic predictors of Gleason sum upgrading in patients after radical prostatectomy: results from a single institution series. Urol Oncol 2009;29:508–14.
   Google Scholar
• Corcoran NM, Hong MK, Casey RG, Hurtado-Coll A, Peters J, Harewood L, et al. Upgrade in Gleason score between prostate biopsies and pathology following radical prostatectomy significantly impacts upon the risk of biochemical recurrence. BJU Int 2011;108:E202–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salembier C, Lavagnini P, Nickers P, Mangili P, Rijnders A, Polo A, et al. GEC ESTRO PROBATE Group. Tumour and target volumes in permanent prostate brachytherapy: a supplement to the ESTRO/EAU/EORTC recommendations on prostate brachytherapy. Radiother Oncol 2007;83:3–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klotz L. Active surveillance for favorable-risk prostate cancer: who, how and why? Nat Clin Pract Oncol 2007;4:692–8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Briganti A, Larcher A, Abdollah F, Capitanio U, Gallina A, Suardi N, et al. Updated nomogram predicting lymph node invasion in patients with prostate cancer undergoing extended pelvic lymph node dissection: the essential importance of percentage of positive cores. Eur Urol 2012;61:480–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King CR, Long JP. Prostate biopsy grading errors: a sampling problem? Int J Cancer 2000;90:326–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sved PD, Gomez P, Manoharan M, Kim SS, Soloway MS. Limitations of biopsy Gleason grade: implications for counseling patients with biopsy Gleason score 6 prostate cancer. J Urol 2004;172:98–102.
   Google Scholar
• Garnett JE, Oyasu R, Grayhack JT. The accuracy of diagnostic biopsy specimens in predicting tumor grades by Gleason's classification of radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 1984;131:690–3.
   Google Scholar
• Fine SW, Epstein JI. A contemporary study correlating prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason score. J Urol 2008;179:1335–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’Amico AV, Renshaw AA, Arsenault L, Schultz D, Richie JP. Clinical predictors of upgrading to Gleason grade 4 or 5 disease at radical prostatectomy: potential implications for patient selection for radiation and androgen suppression therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999;45:841–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chun FK, Briganti A, Shariat SF, Graefen M, Montorsi F, Erbersdobler A, et al. Significant upgrading affects a third of men diagnosed with prostate cancer: predictive nomogram and internal validation. BJU Int 2006;98:329–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fine SW, Amin MB, Berney DM, Bjartell A, Egevad L, Epstein JI, et al. A contemporary update on pathology reporting for prostate cancer: biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Eur Urol 2012;62:20–39.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tilki D, Schlenker B, John M, Buchner A, Stanislaus P, Gratzke C, et al. Clinical and pathologic predictors of Gleason sum upgrading in patients after radical prostatectomy: results from a single institution series. Urol Oncol 2011;29:508–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hambrock T, Hoeks C, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C, Scheenen T, Fütterer J, Bouwense S, et al. Prospective assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using 3-T diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsies versus a systematic 10-core transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy cohort. Eur Urol 2012;61:177–84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar