Proportion of cores with the highest Gleason grade group among positive cores on prostate biopsy: does this affect the probability of upgrading or downgrading?

References

• Chen RC, Rumble RB, Loblaw DA, et al. Active surveillance for the management of localized prostate cancer (Cancer Care Ontario Guideline): American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline endorsement. JCO. 2016;34(18):2182–2190.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang AJ, Autio KA, Roach M, 3rd, et al. High-risk prostate cancer-classification and therapy. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2014;11(6):308–323.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2017;71(4):618–629.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kvåle R, Møller B, Wahlqvist R, et al. Concordance between Gleason scores of needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens: a population‐based study. BJU Int. 2009;103(12):1647–1654.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corcoran NM, Hong MK, Casey RG, 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(8b):E202.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein JI, Feng Z, Trock BJ, et al. 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. 2012/05/01/
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Athanazio D, Gotto G, Shea-Budgell M, et al. Global Gleason grade groups in prostate cancer: concordance of biopsy and radical prostatectomy grades and predictors of upgrade and downgrade. Histopathology. 2017;70(7):1098–1106.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Budaus L, Graefen M, Salomon G, et al. The novel nomogram of Gleason sum upgrade: possible application for the eligible criteria of low dose rate brachytherapy. Int J Urol. 2010;17(10):862–868.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iremashvili V, Manoharan M, Pelaez L, et al. Clinically significant Gleason sum upgrade: external validation and head-to-head comparison of the existing nomograms. Cancer. 2012;118(2):378–385.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chun FKH, Briganti A, Shariat SF, et al. Significant upgrading affects a third of men diagnosed with prostate cancer: predictive nomogram and internal validation. BJU Int. 2006;98(2):329–334.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He B, Chen R, Gao X, et al. Nomograms for predicting Gleason upgrading in a contemporary Chinese cohort receiving radical prostatectomy after extended prostate biopsy: development and internal validation. Oncotarget. 2016;7(13):17275.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Epstein JI. An update of the Gleason grading system. J Urol. 2010;183(2):433–440.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trpkov K, Sangkhamanon S, Yilmaz A, et al. Concordance of “case level” global, highest, and largest volume cancer grade group on needle biopsy versus grade group on radical prostatectomy. Am J Surg Pathol. 2018;42(11):1522–1529.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sauter G, Steurer S, Clauditz TS, et al. Clinical utility of quantitative Gleason grading in prostate biopsies and prostatectomy specimens. Eur Urol. 2016;69(4):592–598.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chun FKH, Steuber T, Erbersdobler A, et al. Development and internal validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of prostate cancer gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology. Eur Urol. 2006;49(5):820–826.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Imamoto T, Utsumi T, Takano M, et al. Development and external validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of significant Gleason sum upgrading among Japanese patients with localized prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer. 2011;2011:1.
   Google Scholar
• Lavery HJ, Nabizada-Pace F, Carlucci JR, et al. Nerve-sparing robotic prostatectomy in preoperatively high-risk patients is safe and efficacious. Urol Oncol. 2012;30(1):26–32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ploussard G, Isbarn H, Briganti A, et al. Can we expand active surveillance criteria to include biopsy Gleason 3 + 4 prostate cancer? A multi-institutional study of 2323 patients. Urol Oncol. 2015;33(2):71.e1–71.e9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bittencourt LK, Barentsz JO, de Miranda LCD, et al. Prostate MRI: diffusion-weighted imaging at 1.5 T correlates better with prostatectomy Gleason grades than TRUS-guided biopsies in peripheral zone tumours. Eur Radiol. 2012;22(2):468–475.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hegde JV, Chen M-H, Mulkern RV, et al. Preoperative 3-Tesla multiparametric endorectal magnetic resonance imaging findings and the odds of upgrading and upstaging at radical prostatectomy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;85(2):e101–e107.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Truong H, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound–fusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. Eur Urol. 2013;64(5):713–719.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valerio M, Donaldson I, Emberton M, et al. Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging–ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2015;68(1):8–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: Screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol. 2011;59(1):61–71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenkrantz AB, Verma S, Choyke P, et al. Prostate magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in patients with a prior negative biopsy: a consensus statement by AUA and SAR. J Urol. 2016;196(6):1613–1618.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar