The validation of the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading system for patients with high-risk prostate cancer: a single-center retrospective study

References

• Bailar JR, Mellinger GT, Gleason DF. Survival rates of patients with prostatic cancer, tumor stage, and differentiation–preliminary report. Cancer Chemother Rep. 1966;50:129–136. 5948715
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Epstein JI, Allsbrook WJ, Amin MB, et al. The 2005 International Society Of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:1228–1242. 16096414
   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;40:244–252. doi:10.1097/PAS.000000000000053026492179
   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;69:428–435. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.04626166626
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loeb S, Folkvaljon Y, Robinson D, et al. Evaluation of the 2015 Gleason grade groups in a nationwide population-based cohort. Eur Urol. 2016;69:1135–1141. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.11.03626707871
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samaratunga H, Delahunt B, Gianduzzo T, et al. The prognostic significance of the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading system for prostate cancer. Pathol J RCPA. 2015;47:515–519.
   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. Pathol J RCPA. 2015;47:520–525.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rusthoven CG, Waxweiler TV, DeWitt PE, et al. Gleason stratifications prognostic for survival in men receiving definitive external beam radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer. Urol Oncol. Elsevier, 2015;33:71. e11–e71. e19. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.07.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spratt DE, Cole AI, Palapattu GS, et al. Independent surgical validation of the new prostate cancer grade‐grouping system. BJU Int. 2016;118:763–769. doi:10.1111/bju.1348827009882
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ham WS, Chalfin HJ, Feng Z, et al. New prostate cancer grading system predicts long-term survival following surgery for Gleason score 8–10 prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2017;71:907–912. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2016.11.00627876305
   PubMed 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;77:263–273. doi:10.1002/pros.2326527753114
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun GX, Shen PF, Zhang XM, et al. Predictive efficacy of the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology Gleason grading system in initially diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer. Asian J Androl. 2017;19:57. 26643562
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’amico AV, Moul J, Carroll PR, et al. Cancer-specific mortality after surgery or radiation for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer managed during the prostate-specific antigen era. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:2163–2172. doi:10.1200/JCO.2003.01.07512775742
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’ Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1998;280:969–974. doi:10.1001/jama.280.11.9699749478
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stephenson AJ, Kattan MW, Eastham JA, et al. Defining biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: a proposal for a standardized definition. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:3973–3978. doi:10.1200/JCO.2005.04.075616921049
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cookson MS, Aus G, Burnett AL, et al. Variation in the definition of biochemical recurrence in patients treated for localized prostate cancer: the American Urological Association Prostate Guidelines for localized prostate cancer update panel report and recommendations for a standard in the reporting of surgical outcomes. J Urol. 2007;177:540–545. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2006.10.09717222629
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan TY, Partin AW, Walsh PC, et al. Prognostic significance of Gleason score 3+ 4 versus Gleason score 4+ 3 tumor at radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2000;56:823–827. 11068310
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merrick GS, Butler WM, Galbreath RW, et al. Biochemical outcome for hormone-naive patients with Gleason score 3+ 4 versus 4+ 3 prostate cancer undergoing permanent prostate brachytherapy. Urology. 2002;60:98–103. 12100932
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stark JR, Perner S, Stampfer MJ, et al. Gleason score and lethal prostate cancer: does 3+ 4= 4+ 3? J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:3459–3464. doi:10.1200/JCO.2008.20.466919433685
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright JL, Salinas CA, Lin DW, et al. Prostate cancer specific mortality and Gleason 7 disease differences in prostate cancer outcomes between cases with Gleason 4+ 3 and Gleason 3+ 4 tumors in a population based cohort. J Urol. 2009;182:2702–2707. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2009.08.02619836772
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Isbarn H, Ahyai SA, Chun FKH, et al. Prevalence of a tertiary Gleason grade and its impact on adverse histopathologic parameters in a contemporary radical prostatectomy series. Eur Urol. 2009;55:394–403. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2008.08.01518718699
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egevad L, Granfors T, Karlberg L, et al. Percent Gleason grade 4/5 as prognostic factor in prostate cancer diagnosed at transurethral resection. J Urol. 2002;168:509–513. 12131299
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jang WS, Yoon CY, Kim MS, et al. The prognostic role of tertiary Gleason pattern 5 in a contemporary grading system for prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2017;20(1):93. doi:10.1038/pcan.2016.5527845330
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baras AS, Nelson JB, Han M, et al. The effect of limited (tertiary) Gleason pattern 5 on the new prostate cancer grade groups. Hum Pathol. 2017;63:27–32. doi:10.1016/j.humpath.2016.12.00827993581
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iczkowski KA, Paner GP, Van der Kwast T. The new realization about cribriform prostate cancer. Adv Anat Pathol. 2018;25:31–37. doi:10.1097/PAP.000000000000016828820750
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar