International Journal of Urology | 2021
Editorial Comment to Prognostic significance of tertiary Gleason pattern in the contemporary era of Gleason grade grouping: A narrative review
Abstract
radical prostatectomy: the role of prognostic grade group and index tumor nodule. Hum. Pathol. 2019; 93: 6–15. 50 Wissing M, Brimo F, Chevalier S et al. Optimization of the 2014 Gleason grade grouping in a Canadian cohort of patients with localized prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2019; 123: 624–31. 51 Hollemans E, Verhoef EI, Bangma CH et al. Prostate carcinoma grade and length but not cribriform architecture at positive surgical margins are predictive for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2020; 44: 191–7. 52 Taguchi S, Uemura Y, Fujimura T et al. Quantification of the individual risk of each Gleason pattern, including tertiary Gleason pattern 5, after radical prostatectomy: development of the modified Gleason grade grouping (mGGG) model. BMC Cancer 2020; 20: 371. 53 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: e1–7. 54 Srigley JR, Delahunt B, Samaratunga H et al. Controversial issues in Gleason and International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) prostate cancer grading: proposed recommendations for international implementation. Pathology 2019; 51: 463–73. 55 Moch H, Humphrey PA, Ulbright TM, Reuter VE (eds). WHO Classification of Tumours of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs, 4th edn. Lyon, France, IARC, 2016. 56 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. 57 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. 58 Yeong J, Sultana R, Teo J et al. Gleason grade grouping of prostate cancer is of prognostic value in Asian men. J. Clin. Pathol. 2017; 70: 745–53. 59 Shah RB, Li J, Cheng L et al. Diagnosis of Gleason pattern 5 prostate adenocarcinoma on core needle biopsy: an interobserver reproducibility study among urologic pathologists. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2015; 39: 1242–9. 60 Patel AA, Chen MH, Renshaw AA, D’Amico AV PSA failure following definitive treatment of prostate cancer having biopsy Gleason score 7 with tertiary grade 5. JAMA 2007; 298: 1533–8. 61 Nanda A, Chen MH, Renshaw AA, D’Amico AV Gleason pattern 5 prostate cancer: further stratification of patients with high-risk disease and implications for future randomized trials. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2009; 74: 1419–23. 62 Egevad L, Granfors T, Karlberg L, Bergh A, Stattin P Percent Gleason grade 4/5 as prognostic factor in prostate cancer diagnosed at transurethral resection. J. Urol. 2002; 168: 509–13. 63 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: 405–11. 64 Perlis N, Sayyid R, Evans A et al. Limitations in predicting organ confined prostate cancer in patients with Gleason pattern 4 on biopsy: implications for active surveillance. J. Urol. 2017; 197: 75–83. 65 Choy B, Pearce SM, Anderson BB et al. Prognostic significance of percentage and architectural types of contemporary Gleason pattern 4 prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2016; 40: 1400–6. 66 Egevad L, Delahunt B, Samaratunga H, Srigley JR Utility of reporting the percentage of high-grade prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 2016; 69: 599–600. 67 Montironi R, Cheng L, Scarpelli M, Lopez-Beltran A From Gleason grading system and high-grade tertiary patterns to grade groups and integrated quantitative Gleason score. Eur. Urol. 2018; 73: 684–6. 68 Morash C, Tey R, Agbassi C et al. Active surveillance for the management of localized prostate cancer: guideline recommendations. Can. Urol. Assoc. J. 2015; 9: 171–8. 69 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 practice guideline endorsement. J. Clin. Oncol. 2016; 34: 2182–90. 70 McNeal JE, Villers AA, Redwine EA, Freiha FS, Stamey TA Histologic differentiation, cancer volume, and pelvic lymph node metastasis in adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Cancer 1990; 66: 1225–33. 71 Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Yemoto CM, Sigal BM, Johnstone IM Biological determinants of cancer progression in men with prostate cancer. JAMA 1999; 281: 1395–400. 72 Str€om P, Kartasalo K, Olsson H et al. Artificial intelligence for diagnosis and grading of prostate cancer in biopsies: a population-based, diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol. 2020; 21: 222–32. 73 Kweldam CF, van der Kwast T, van Leenders GJ On cribriform prostate cancer. Transl. Androl. Urol. 2018; 7: 145–54. 74 Tsuzuki T Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate: a comprehensive and updated review. Int. J. Urol. 2015; 22: 140–5.