759 844
References
[1]
Mellinger GT, Gleason D, Bailar J3rd. The histology and prognosis of prostatic cancer. J Urol 1967;97:331–7.[2]
Epstein JI, Allsbrook Jr WC, Amin MB, Egevad LL. The 2005 Interna- tional Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005;29: 1228–42.[3]
Billis A, Guimaraes MS, Freitas LL, Meirelles L, Magna LA, Ferreira U. The impact of the 2005 International Society Of Urological Pathol- ogy consensus conference on standard Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in needle biopsies. J Urol 2008;180:548–52.
[4]
Uemura H, Hoshino K, Sasaki T, et al. Usefulness of the 2005 Inter- national Society of Urologic Pathology Gleason grading system in prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. BJU Int 2009;103:1190–4.
[5]
Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) con- sensus 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.
[6]
Zietman A, Smith J, Klein E, Droller M, Dasgupta P, Catto J. Describ- ing the grade of prostate cancer: consistent use of contemporary terminology is now required. Eur Urol 2016;70:1.
[7]
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;69:1135–41.
[8]
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;19:292–7.
[9]
Spratt DE, Cole AI, Palapattu GS, et al. Independent surgical valida- tion of the new prostate cancer grade grouping system. BJU Int 2016;118:763–9.
[10]
Pierorazio PM, Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI. Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring sys- tem. BJU Int 2013;111:753–60.[11]
Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD, et al. A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason score. Eur Urol 2016;69:428–35.[12]
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;114:1078–83.[13]
Lubeck DP, Litwin MS, Henning JM, et al. The CaPSURE database: a methodology for clinical practice and research in prostate cancer. Urology 1996;48:773–7.[14]
Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Carroll PR. Risk assessment for pros- tate cancer metastasis and mortality at the time of diagnosis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:878–87.[15]
Berger MF, Lawrence MS, Demichelis F, et al. The genomic com- plexity of primary human prostate cancer. Nature 2011;470: 214–20.[16]
Stephenson AJ, Kattan MW, Eastham JA, et al. Prostate cancer- specific mortality after radical prostatectomy for patients treated in the prostate-specific antigen era. J Clin Oncol 2009;27: 4300–5.
[17]
Black PC, Penson DF. Prostate cancer on the Internet—information or misinformation? J Urol 2006;175:1836–42.
[18]
Newcomb LF, Thompson Jr IM, Boyer HD, et al. Outcomes of active surveillance for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer in the prospective, multi-institutional Canary PASS cohort. J Urol 2016;195:313–20.[19]
Loeb S, Curnyn C, Sedlander E. Perspectives of prostate cancer patients on Gleason scores and the new grade groups: initial qualitative study. Eur Urol 2016;70:1083–5.
[20]
Karakiewicz PI, Chun FK, Gallina A, et al. Biopsies performed at tertiary care centers are superior to referral biopsies in predicting pathologic Gleason sum. J Endourol 2008;22:533–8.[21]
Xia J, Trock BJ, Cooperberg MR, et al. Prostate cancer mortality following active surveillance versus immediate radical prostatec- tomy. Clin Cancer Res 2012;18:5471–8.[22]
Cooperberg MR, Vickers AJ, Broering JM, Carroll PR. Comparative risk-adjusted mortality outcomes after primary surgery, radiother- apy, or androgen-deprivation therapy for localized prostate cancer. Cancer 2010;116:5226–34.[23]
Cheng L, Davidson DD, Lin H, Koch MO. Percentage of Gleason pattern 4 and 5 predicts survival after radical prostatectomy. Cancer 2007;110:1967–72.[24]
Cheng L, Koch MO, Juliar BE, et al. The combined percentage of Gleason patterns 4 and 5 is the best predictor of cancer progression after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:2911–7.
[25]
Reese AC, Cowan JE, Brajtbord JS, Harris CR, Carroll PR, Cooperberg MR. The quantitative Gleason score improves prostate cancer risk assessment. Cancer 2012;118:6046–54.
[26]
Cole AI, Morgan TM, Spratt DE, et al. Prognostic value of percent Gleason grade 4 at prostate biopsy on predicting prostatectomy pathology and recurrence. J Urol 2016;196:405–11.[27]
McKenney JK, Simko J, Bonham M, et al. The potential impact of reproducibility of Gleason grading in men with early stage prostate cancer managed by active surveillance: a multi-institutional study. J Urol 2011;186:465–9.[28]
Narain V, Bianco Jr FJ, Grignon DJ, Sakr WA, Pontes JE, W ood Jr DP. How accurately does prostate biopsy Gleason score predict pathologic findings and disease free survival? Prostate 2001;49: 185–90.E U R O P E A N U R O L O G Y 7 1 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 7 5 0 – 7 5 9
759