Active surveillance as a therapeutic option for patients with low-risk prostate cancer according to the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology grading system: a review

References

• Klotz L. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: overview and update. Curr Treat Options Oncol 2013;14:97–108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P, Jethava V, Zhang L, Jain S, et al. Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:272–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klotz L, Zhang L, Lam A, Nam R, Mamedov A, Loblaw A. Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:126–31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carter HB, Partin AW, Walsh PC, Trock BJ, Veltri RW, Nelson WG, et al. Gleason score 6 adenocarcinoma: should it be labeled as cancer? J Clin Oncol 2012;30:4294–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helpap B, Kristiansen G, Kollermann J, Köllermann J, Shaikhibrahim Z, Wernert N, et al. Significance of Gleason grading of low-grade carcinoma of the prostate with therapeutic option of active surveillance. Urol Int 2013;90:17–23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tosoian JJ, Trock BJ, Landis P, Feng Z, Epstein JI, Partin AW, et al. Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:2185–90.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• San Francisco IF, Werner L, Regan MM, Garnick MB, Bubley G, DeWolf WC. Risk stratification and validation of prostate specific antigen density as independent predictor of progression in men with low risk prostate cancer during active surveillance. J Urol 2011;185:471–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adamy A, Yee DS, Matsushita K, Maschino A, Cronin A, Vickers A, et al. Role of prostate specific antigen and immediate confirmatory biopsy in predicting progression during active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2011;185:477–82.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soloway MS, Soloway CT, Eldefrawy A, Acosta K, Kava B, Manoharan M. Careful selection and close monitoring of low-risk prostate cancer patients on active surveillance minimizes the need for treatment. Eur Urol 2010;58:831–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein JI. An update of the Gleason grading system. J Urol 2010;183:433–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad Ll, ISUP Grading Committee. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005;29:1228–42.
   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;40:244–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD, Nelson JB, Egevad L, Magi-Galluzzi C, et al. A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason score. Eur Urol 2016;69:428–35.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordetsky J, Epstein J. Grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma: current state and prognostic implications. Diagn Pathol 2016;11:25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kristiansen G, Egevad L, Amin M, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA, et al. [The 2014 consensus conference of the ISUP on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma]. Pathologe 2016;37:17–26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kristiansen G, Roth W, Helpap B. [Grading of prostate cancer]. Pathologe 2016;37:352–4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helpap B, Ringli D, Breul J, Tonhauser J, Poser I, Seifert H-H. The value of prognostic grouping of prostatic carcinomas for urologists and pathologists. Urol Int 2015;95:436–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helpap B, Ringli D, Gevensleben H. Significance of number and localization of positive core biopsies for the identification of prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance. Anal Quant Cytopathol Histpathol 2016;38:9–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helpap B, Kollermann J. Combined histoarchitectural and cytological biopsy grading improves grading accuracy in low-grade prostate cancer. Int J Urol 2012;19:126–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helpap B, Kristiansen G, Beer M, Köllermann J, Oehler U, Pogrebniak A, et al. Improving the reproducibility of the Gleason scores in small foci of prostate cancer – suggestion of diagnostic criteria for glandular fusion. Pathol Oncol Res 2012;18:615–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helpap B, Ringli D, Shaikhibrahim Z, Wernert N, Kristiansen G. The heterogeneous Gleason 7 carcinoma of the prostate: analyses of low and high grade (risk) carcinomas with criteria of the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP). Pathol Res Pract 2013;209:190–4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helpap B, Ringli D, Tonhauser J, Poser I, Breul J, Gevensleben H, et al. The significance of accurate determination of Gleason score for therapeutic options and prognosis of prostate cancer. Pathol Oncol Res 2016;22:349–56.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pierorazio PM, Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI. Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int 2013;111:753–60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helpap B, Egevad L. Modified Gleason grading. An updated review. Histol Histopathol 2009;24:661–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang CC, Kong MX, Zhou M, Rosenkrantz AB, Taneja SS, Melamed J, et al. Gleason score 3 + 4=7 prostate cancer with minimal quantity of gleason pattern 4 on needle biopsy is associated with low-risk tumor in radical prostatectomy specimen. Am J Surg Pathol 2014;38:1096–101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Humphrey PA, Moch H, Cubilla AL, Ulbright TM, Reuter VE. The 2016 WHO classification of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs – part B: prostate and bladder tumours. Eur Urol 2016;70:106–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein JI. The Gleason grading system: a complete guide for pathologists and clinicians. 1st ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Health; 2013.
   Google Scholar