Warning: Undefined array key "mm" in /www/wwwroot/www.ai-bt.com/si.php on line 10 Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /www/wwwroot/www.ai-bt.com/si.php on line 10 Current practice of Gleason grading of prostate carcinoma.

Literature DB >> 16328356

Current practice of Gleason grading of prostate carcinoma.

Antonio Lopez-Beltran¹, Gregor Mikuz, Rafael J Luque, Roberta Mazzucchelli, Rodolfo Montironi.

Abstract

The Gleason grading system remains one of the most powerful prognostic factors in prostate cancer and is the dominant method around the world in daily practice. It is based solely on the glandular architecture performed at low magnification. The Gleason grading system should be performed in needle core biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens where it shows a reasonable degree of correlation between both specimens, and most importantly, it remains vital in the treatment decision-making process. This review summarizes the current status of Gleason grading in prostate cancer, incorporating recent proposals for the best contemporary practice of prostate cancer grading.

Entities: Disease

Mesh：

Year: 2005 PMID： 16328356 DOI： 10.1007/s00428-005-0102-4

Source DB: PubMed Journal: Virchows Arch ISSN： 0945-6317 Impact factor: 4.064

46 in total

1. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: general pathologist.

Authors: W C Allsbrook; K A Mangold; M H Johnson; R B Lane; C G Lane; J I Epstein
Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2001-01 Impact factor: 3.466

Review 2. Prognostic factors in prostate cancer. College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999.

Authors: D G Bostwick; D J Grignon; M E Hammond; M B Amin; M Cohen; D Crawford; M Gospadarowicz; R S Kaplan; D S Miller; R Montironi; T F Pajak; A Pollack; J R Srigley; J W Yarbro
Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 5.534

3. Current practice of Gleason grading among genitourinary pathologists.

Authors: Lars Egevad; William C Allsbrook; Jonathan I Epstein
Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 3.466

4. Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging.

Authors: D F Gleason; G T Mellinger
Journal: J Urol Date: 1974-01 Impact factor: 7.450

5. The combined percentage of Gleason patterns 4 and 5 is the best predictor of cancer progression after radical prostatectomy.

Authors: Liang Cheng; Michael O Koch; Beth E Juliar; Joanne K Daggy; Richard S Foster; Richard Bihrle; Thomas A Gardner
Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-05-01 Impact factor: 44.544

6. Survival rates of patients with prostatic cancer, tumor stage, and differentiation--preliminary report.

Authors: J C Bailar; G T Mellinger; D F Gleason
Journal: Cancer Chemother Rep Date: 1966-03

7. Gleason score 7 prostate cancer on needle biopsy: is the prognostic difference in Gleason scores 4 + 3 and 3 + 4 independent of the number of involved cores?

Authors: Danil V Makarov; Harriete Sanderson; Alan W Partin; Jonathan I Epstein
Journal: J Urol Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 7.450

8. Prognostic significance of Gleason score 3+4 versus Gleason score 4+3 tumor at radical prostatectomy.

Authors: T Y Chan; A W Partin; P C Walsh; J I Epstein
Journal: Urology Date: 2000-11-01 Impact factor: 2.649

9. Should each core with prostate cancer be assigned a separate gleason score?

Authors: George M Kunz; Jonathan I Epstein
Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 3.466

10. Prostate needle biopsy reporting: how are the surgical members of the Society of Urologic Oncology using pathology reports to guide treatment of prostate cancer patients?

Authors: Mark A Rubin; Tarek A Bismar; Sarah Curtis; James E Montie
Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 6.394

15 in total

Review 1. [The value of the modified Gleason grading system of prostate adenocarcinoma in routine urological diagnostics].

Authors: B Helpap; L Egevad
Journal: Urologe A Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 0.639

Review 2. [Diagnostic of prostate cancer: conventional and molecular or cell biological methods].

Authors: M Susani; L Kenner; Z Culig
Journal: Pathologe Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 1.011

3. Heterogeneity of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) expression in prostate carcinoma with distant metastasis.

Authors: Sebastian Mannweiler; Peter Amersdorfer; Slave Trajanoski; Jonathan A Terrett; David King; Gabor Mehes
Journal: Pathol Oncol Res Date: 2008-09-18 Impact factor: 3.201

Review 4. Biomarker research in prostate cancer--towards utility, not futility.

Authors: Sheng Fei Oon; Stephen R Pennington; John M Fitzpatrick; R William G Watson
Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 14.432

5. [Importance of second opinions on histology of prostate biopsy specimens].

Authors: B Helpap; U Oehler
Journal: Pathologe Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 1.011

Review 6. Concomitant bladder cancer and prostate cancer: challenges and controversies.

Authors: Antonio Lopez-Beltran; Liang Cheng; Francesco Montorsi; Maria Scarpelli; Maria R Raspollini; Rodolfo Montironi
Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2017-08-16 Impact factor: 14.432

7. [Documentation quality of histopathology reports of prostate needle biopsies: a snapshot].

Authors: S Biesterfeld
Journal: Urologe A Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 0.639

Review 8. Reproducibility and reliability of tumor grading in urological neoplasms.

Authors: Rainer Engers
Journal: World J Urol Date: 2007-09-09 Impact factor: 4.226

9. Discovery of novel hypermethylated genes in prostate cancer using genomic CpG island microarrays.

Authors: Ken Kron; Vaijayanti Pethe; Laurent Briollais; Bekim Sadikovic; Hilmi Ozcelik; Alia Sunderji; Vasundara Venkateswaran; Jehonathan Pinthus; Neil Fleshner; Theodorus van der Kwast; Bharati Bapat
Journal: PLoS One Date: 2009-03-13 Impact factor: 3.240

10. TRPV6 alleles do not influence prostate cancer progression.

Authors: Thorsten Kessler; Ulrich Wissenbach; Rainer Grobholz; Veit Flockerzi
Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2009-10-26 Impact factor: 4.430