Correlation of the Grade Group of Prostate Cancer according to the International Society of Urological Pathology (Isup) 2014 Classification between Prostate Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Specimens

References

• Center MM, Jemal A, Lortet-Tieulent J, Ward E, Ferlay J, Brawley O, et al. International variation in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates. Eur Urol. 2012;61(6):1079–1092. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.02.054.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein JI. An update of the Gleason grading system. J Urol. 2010;183(2):433–440. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2009.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kvåle R, Møller B, Wahlqvist R, Fosså SD, Berner A, Busch C, et al. Concordance between Gleason scores of needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens: a population-based study. BJU Int. 2009;103(12):1647–1654. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.08255.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arrabal-Polo MA, Jiménez-Pacheco A, Mijan-Ortiz JL, et al. Relationship between biopsy Gleason score and radical prostatectomy specimen Gleasonscore in patients undergoing sextant vs 12 core biopsies. Arch Esp Urol. 2010;63:791–796. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21098898.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dolatkhah S, Mirtalebi M, Daneshpajouhnejad P, Barahimi A, Mazdak H, Izadpanahi MH, et al. Discrepancies between biopsy gleason score and radical prostatectomy specimen gleason score: an Iranian experience. Urol J. 2019;16(1):56–61. doi:10.22037/uj.v0i0.4174.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hupe MC, Offermann A, Sailer V, et al. Status quo 5 years after the introduction of the new ISUP 2014/WHO 2016 prostate cancer grade groups. Aktuelle Urol. 2019;50(6):619–624. doi:10.1055/a-0918-9473.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grogan J, Gupta R, Mahon KL, Stricker PD, Haynes A-M, Delprado W, et al. Predictive value of the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology grading system for prostate cancer in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy with long-term follow-up. BJU Int. 2017;120(5):651–658. doi:10.1111/bju.13857.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dell’Oglio P, Karnes RJ, Gandaglia G, Fossati N, Stabile A, Moschini M, et al. The new prostate cancer grading system does not improve prediction of clinical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: results of a large, two-center validation study. Prostate. 2017;77(3):263–273. doi:10.1002/pros.23265.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Çalışkan S. Prevelance of prostate cancer among Turkish men with prostate-specific antigen level of ≤100 ng/mL. J Cancer Res Ther. 2018;14(6):1256–1259. doi:10.4103/0973-1482.187387.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA, et al. 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. 2016;40(2):244–252. doi:10.1097/PAS.0000000000000820.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’Elia C, Cerruto MA, Cioffi A, Novella G, Cavalleri S, Artibani W, et al. Upgrading and upstaging in prostate cancer: from prostate biopsy to radical prostatectomy. Mol Clin Oncol. 2014;2(6):1145–1149. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25279213. doi:10.3892/mco.2014.370.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Epstein JI, Feng Z, Trock BJ, Pierorazio PM. Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades. Eur Urol. 2012;61(5):1019–1024. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.01.050.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rajinikanth A, Manoharan M, Soloway CT, Civantos FJ, Soloway MS. Trends in Gleason score: concordance between biopsy and prostatectomy over 15 years. Urology. 2008;72(1):177–182. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Capitanio U, Karakiewicz PI, Valiquette L, Perrotte P, Jeldres C, Briganti A, et al. Biopsy core number represents one of foremost predictors of clinically significant Gleason sum upgrading in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Urology. 2009;73(5):1087–1091. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2008.10.048.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pérez JL, Puente ET, Kulich EI, et al. Relationship between tumor grade and geometrical complexity in prostate cancer. BioRxiv. 2015, 015016. doi:10.1101/015016.
   Google Scholar
• Walker R, Lindner U, Louis A, Kalnin R, Ennis M, Nesbitt M, et al. Concordance between transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy results and radical prostatectomy final pathology: are we getting better at predicting final pathology? Can Urol Assoc J. 2014;8(1–2):47. doi:10.5489/cuaj.751.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erdogan A, Polat S, Keskin E, et al. Is prostate volume better than PSA density and free/total PSA ratio in predicting prostate cancer in patients with PSA 2.5-10 ng/mL and 10.1–30 ng/mL? Aging Male. 2019;23(1):1–7. doi:10.1080/13685538.2019.1578741.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reis LO, Sanches BCF, de Mendonça GB, Silva DM, Aguiar T, Menezes OP, et al. Gleason underestimation is predicted by prostate biopsy core length. World J Urol. 2015;33(6):821–826. doi:10.1007/s00345-014-1371-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ooi K, Samali R. Discrepancies in Gleason scoring of prostate biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens and the effects of multiple needle biopsies on scoring accuracy. A regional experience in Tamworth, Australia. ANZ J Surg. 2007;77(5):336–338. doi:10.1111/j.1445-2197.2007.04054.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amin MB, Lin DW, Gore JL, Srigley JR, Samaratunga H, Egevad L, et al. The critical role of the pathologist in determining eligibility for active surveillance as a management option in patients with prostate cancer: consensus statement with recommendations supported by the College of American Pathologists, International Society of Urological Pathology, Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology, the New Zealand Society of Pathologists, and the Prostate Cancer Foundation. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2014;138(10):1387–405. doi:10.5858/arpa.2014-0219-SA.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sebo TJ, Bock BJ, Cheville JC, Lohse C, Wollan P, Zincke H, et al. The percent of cores positive for cancer in prostate needle biopsy specimens is strongly predictive of tumor stage and volume at radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2000;163(1):174–178. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10604340. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(05)67998-0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tseng KS, Landis P, Epstein JI, Trock BJ, Carter HB. Risk stratification of men choosing surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2010;183(5):1779–1785. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2010.01.001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bul M, Zhu X, Valdagni R, Pickles T, Kakehi Y, Rannikko A, et al. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol. 2013;63(4):597–603. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.11.005.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eggener SE, Mueller A, Berglund RK, Ayyathurai R, Soloway C, Soloway MS, et al. A multi-institutional evaluation of active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2013;189(1 Suppl):S19–S25. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2012.11.023.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson IM, Pauler DK, Goodman PJ, et al. Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level < or = 4 ng per milliliter. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2239–2246. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15163773.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Serkin FB, Soderdahl DW, Cullen J, Chen Y, Hernandez J. Patient risk stratification using Gleason score concordance and upgrading among men with prostate biopsy Gleason score 6 or 7. Urol Oncol. 2010;28(3):302–307. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2008.09.030.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar