Prognostic Utility of the Gleason Grading System Revisions and Histopathological Factors Beyond Gleason Grade

References

• Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL, Committee IG. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29(9):1228–1242. doi:10.1097/01.pas.0000173646.99337.b1
   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. doi:10.1097/PAS.0000000000000530
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein JI, Amin MB, Reuter VE, Humphrey PA. Contemporary Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: an update with discussion on practical issues to implement the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2017;41(4):e1–e7. doi:10.1097/PAS.0000000000000820
   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(1):106–119. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2016.02.028
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Billis A, Guimaraes MS, Freitas LL, Meirelles L, Magna LA, Ferreira U. The impact of the 2005 international society of urological pathology consensus conference on standard Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in needle biopsies. J Urol. 2008;180(2):548–552; discussion 552–543. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2008.04.018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uemura H, Hoshino K, Sasaki T, et al. Usefulness of the 2005 International Society of Urologic Pathology Gleason grading system in prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. BJU Int. 2009;103(9):1190–1194. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.08197.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delahunt B, Lamb DS, Srigley JR, et al. Gleason scoring: a comparison of classical and modified (international society of urological pathology) criteria using nadir PSA as a clinical end point. Pathology. 2010;42(4):339–343. doi:10.3109/00313021003787924
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He J, Albertsen PC, Moore D, Rotter D, Demissie K, Lu-Yao G. Validation of a contemporary five-tiered Gleason grade grouping using population-based data. Eur Urol. 2017;71(5):760–763. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2016.11.031
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leapman MS, Cowan JE, Simko J, et al. Application of a prognostic Gleason grade grouping system to assess distant prostate cancer outcomes. Eur Urol. 2017;71(5):750–759. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2016.11.032
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bondarenko HD, Zanaty M, Harmouch SS, et al. External validation of the novel International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Gleason grading groups in a large contemporary Canadian cohort. Can Urol Assoc J. 2018. doi:10.5489/cuaj.5284
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dell’Oglio P, Karnes RJ, Gandaglia G, 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
• Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD, et al. A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason score. Eur Urol. 2016;69(3):428–435. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.046
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loeb S, Folkvaljon Y, Robinson D, Lissbrant IF, Egevad L, Stattin P. Evaluation of the 2015 Gleason grade groups in a nationwide population-based cohort. Eur Urol. 2016;69(6):1135–1141. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.11.036
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mathieu R, Moschini M, Beyer B, et al. Prognostic value of the new Grade Groups in Prostate Cancer: a multi-institutional European validation study. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2017;20(2):197–202. doi:10.1038/pcan.2016.66
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen C, Chen Y, Hu LK, Jiang CC, Xu RF, He XZ. The performance of the new prognostic grade and stage groups in conservatively treated prostate cancer. Asian J Androl. 2018;20(4):366–371. doi:10.4103/aja.aja_5_18
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pompe RS, Davis-Bondarenko H, Zaffuto E, et al. Population-based validation of the 2014 ISUP Gleason grade groups in patients treated with radical prostatectomy, brachytherapy, external beam radiation, or no local treatment. Prostate. 2017;77(6):686–693. doi:10.1002/pros.23316
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Leenders G, Kweldam CF, Hollemans E, et al. Improved prostate cancer biopsy grading by incorporation of invasive cribriform and intraductal carcinoma in the 2014 grade groups. Eur Urol. 2020;77(2):191–198. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2019.07.051
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kweldam CF, Kummerlin IP, Nieboer D, et al. Disease-specific survival of patients with invasive cribriform and intraductal prostate cancer at diagnostic biopsy. Mod Pathol. 2016;29(6):630–636. doi:10.1038/modpathol.2016.49
   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. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.10.029
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cole AI, Morgan TM, Spratt DE, et al. Prognostic value of percent Gleason grade 4 at prostate biopsy in predicting prostatectomy pathology and recurrence. J Urol. 2016;196(2):405–411. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2016.01.120
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berney DM, Beltran L, Sandu H, et al. The percentage of high-grade prostatic adenocarcinoma in prostate biopsies significantly improves on Grade Groups in the prediction of prostate cancer death. Histopathology. 2019;75(4):589–597. doi:10.1111/his.13888
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quintal MM, Meirelles LR, Freitas LL, Magna LA, Ferreira U, Billis A. Various morphometric measurements of cancer extent on needle prostatic biopsies: which is predictive of pathologic stage and biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy? Int Urol Nephrol. 2011;43(3):697–705. doi:10.1007/s11255-011-9901-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rajab R, Fisher G, Kattan MW, et al. Measurements of cancer extent in a conservatively treated prostate cancer biopsy cohort. Virchows Arch. 2010;457(5):547–553. doi:10.1007/s00428-010-0971-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harnden P, Shelley MD, Naylor B, Coles B, Mason MD. Does the extent of carcinoma in prostatic biopsies predict prostate-specific antigen recurrence? A systematic review. Eur Urol. 2008;54(4):728–739. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2008.06.068
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Briganti A, Chun FK, Hutterer GC, et al. Systematic assessment of the ability of the number and percentage of positive biopsy cores to predict pathologic stage and biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2007;52(3):733–743. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2007.02.054
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harnden P, Shelley MD, Clements H, et al. The prognostic significance of perineural invasion in prostatic cancer biopsies: a systematic review. Cancer. 2007;109(1):13–24. doi:10.1002/cncr.22388
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strom P, Nordstrom T, Delahunt B, et al. Prognostic value of perineural invasion in prostate needle biopsies: a population-based study of patients treated by radical prostatectomy. J Clin Pathol. 2020;73(10):630–635. doi:10.1136/jclinpath-2019-206300
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomic K, Berglund A, Robinson D, et al. Capture rate and representativity of The National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden. Acta Oncol. 2015;54(2):158–163. doi:10.3109/0284186X.2014.939299
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fall K, Stromberg F, Rosell J, Andren O, Varenhorst E; South-East Region Prostate Cancer G. Reliability of death certificates in prostate cancer patients. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2008;42(4):352–357. doi:10.1080/00365590802078583
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Godtman R, Holmberg E, Stranne J, Hugosson J. High accuracy of Swedish death certificates in men participating in screening for prostate cancer: a comparative study of official death certificates with a cause of death committee using a standardized algorithm. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2011;45(4):226–232. doi:10.3109/00365599.2011.559950
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Obuchowski NA, McClish DK. Sample size determination for diagnostic accuracy studies involving binormal ROC curve indices. Stat Med. 1997;16(13):1529–1542. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19970715)16:13<1529::AID-SIM565>3.0.CO;2-H
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zelic R, Giunchi F, Lianas L, et al. Interchangeability of light and virtual microscopy for histopathological evaluation of prostate cancer. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):3257. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-82911-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Firth D. Bias reduction of maximum likelihood estimates. Biometrika. 1993;80(1):27–38. doi:10.1093/biomet/80.1.27
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bamber D. Area above ordinal dominance graph and area below receiver operating characteristic graph. J Math Psychol. 1975;12(4):387–415. doi:10.1016/0022-2496(75)90001-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brentnall AR, Cuzick J, Field J, Duffy SW. A concordance index for matched case-control studies with applications in cancer risk. Stat Med. 2015;34(3):396–405. doi:10.1002/sim.6335
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44(3):837–845. doi:10.2307/2531595
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Offermann A, Hohensteiner S, Kuempers C, et al. Prognostic value of the new prostate cancer international society of urological pathology grade groups. Front Med. 2017;4:157. doi:10.3389/fmed.2017.00157
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spratt DE, Jackson WC, Abugharib A, et al. Independent validation of the prognostic capacity of the ISUP prostate cancer grade grouping system for radiation treated patients with long-term follow-up. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2016;19(3):292–297. doi:10.1038/pcan.2016.18
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berney DM, Beltran L, Fisher G, et al. Validation of a contemporary prostate cancer grading system using prostate cancer death as outcome. Br J Cancer. 2016;114(10):1078–1083. doi:10.1038/bjc.2016.86
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delahunt B, Egevad L, Srigley JR, et al. Validation of International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading for prostatic adenocarcinoma in thin core biopsies using TROG 03.04 “RADAR” trial clinical data. Pathology. 2015;47(6):520–525. doi:10.1097/PAT.0000000000000318
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cuzick J, Fisher G, Kattan MW, et al. Long-term outcome among men with conservatively treated localised prostate cancer. Br J Cancer. 2006;95(9):1186–1194. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6603411
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooperberg MR, Pasta DJ, Elkin EP, et al. The University of California, San Francisco Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score: a straightforward and reliable preoperative predictor of disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2005;173(6):1938–1942. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000158155.33890.e7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mohler JL, Antonarakis ES, Armstrong AJ, et al. Prostate Cancer, Version 2.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019;17(5):479–505. doi:10.6004/jnccn.2019.0023
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flood TA, Schieda N, Sim J, et al. Evaluation of tumor morphologies and association with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy in grade group 5 prostate cancer. Virchows Arch. 2018;472(2):205–212. doi:10.1007/s00428-017-2241-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davidsson S, Fiorentino M, Andren O, et al. Inflammation, focal atrophic lesions, and prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia with respect to risk of lethal prostate cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2011;20(10):2280–2287. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-11-0373
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kweldam CF, Kummerlin IP, Nieboer D, et al. Presence of invasive cribriform or intraductal growth at biopsy outperforms percentage grade 4 in predicting outcome of Gleason score 3+4=7 prostate cancer. Mod Pathol. 2017;30(8):1126–1132. doi:10.1038/modpathol.2017.29
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar