Literature DB >> 26792002

[Prostate cancer. Part 2: Review of the various tumor grading systems over the years 1966-2015 and future perspectives of the new grading of the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP)].

B Helpap1, L Bubendorf2, G Kristiansen3.   

Abstract

The continued development of methods in needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy for treatment of prostate cancer has given special emphasis to the question of the prognostic relevance of the various systems of grading. The classical purely histological grading system of Gleason has been modified several times in the past decades and cleared the way for a new grading system by the prognostic grading of Epstein. Assessment of the old and also modified combined histological and cytological grading of Mostofi, the World health Organization (WHO) and the urologic-pathological working group of prostate cancer in connection with the Gleason grading (combined Gleason-Helpap grading), has led to considerably improved rates of concordance between biopsy and radical prostatectomy and to improved estimations of prognosis beside its contribution to the development of a more practicable grading system for clinical use.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Combined grading of Gleason/Helpap; Cytology; Gleason; Grading of Mostofi/WHO; Histology

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26792002     DOI: 10.1007/s00292-015-0124-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pathologe        ISSN: 0172-8113            Impact factor:   1.011


  25 in total

Review 1.  The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma.

Authors:  Jonathan I Epstein; William C Allsbrook; Mahul B Amin; Lars L Egevad
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 6.394

2.  The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens.

Authors:  Burkhard Helpap; Lars Egevad
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2006-11-08       Impact factor: 4.064

3.  Classification of prostatic carcinomas.

Authors:  D F Gleason
Journal:  Cancer Chemother Rep       Date:  1966-03

Review 4.  The critical role of the pathologist in determining eligibility for active surveillance as a management option in patients with prostate cancer: consensus statement with recommendations supported by the College of American Pathologists, International Society of Urological Pathology, Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology, the New Zealand Society of Pathologists, and the Prostate Cancer Foundation.

Authors:  Mahul B Amin; Daniel W Lin; John L Gore; John R Srigley; Hema Samaratunga; Lars Egevad; Mark Rubin; John Nacey; H Ballentine Carter; Laurence Klotz; Howard Sandler; Anthony L Zietman; Stuart Holden; Rodolfo Montironi; Peter A Humphrey; Andrew J Evans; Jonathan I Epstein; Brett Delahunt; Jesse K McKenney; Dan Berney; Thomas M Wheeler; Arul M Chinnaiyan; Lawrence True; Beatrice Knudsen; M Elizabeth H Hammond
Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med       Date:  2014-08-05       Impact factor: 5.534

5.  Significance of Number and Localization of Positive Core Biopsies for the Identification of Prostate Cancer Eligible for Active Surveillance.

Authors:  Burkhard Helpap; Daniel Ringli; Heidrun Gevensleben
Journal:  Anal Quant Cytopathol Histpathol       Date:  2016-02

6.  [Prognostic significance of prostatic carcinoma grading according to Helpap].

Authors:  U Mahlke; A Ulman; J Kunz
Journal:  Verh Dtsch Ges Pathol       Date:  1993

7.  Pathological outcomes in men with low risk and very low risk prostate cancer: implications on the practice of active surveillance.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Tosoian; Eric JohnBull; Bruce J Trock; Patricia Landis; Jonathan I Epstein; Alan W Partin; Patrick C Walsh; H Ballentine Carter
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2013-04-30       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Gleason score 3 + 4=7 prostate cancer with minimal quantity of gleason pattern 4 on needle biopsy is associated with low-risk tumor in radical prostatectomy specimen.

Authors:  Cheng Cheng Huang; Max Xiangtian Kong; Ming Zhou; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Samir S Taneja; Jonathan Melamed; Fang-Ming Deng
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 6.394

9.  A Contemporary Prostate Cancer Grading System: A Validated Alternative to the Gleason Score.

Authors:  Jonathan I Epstein; Michael J Zelefsky; Daniel D Sjoberg; Joel B Nelson; Lars Egevad; Cristina Magi-Galluzzi; Andrew J Vickers; Anil V Parwani; Victor E Reuter; Samson W Fine; James A Eastham; Peter Wiklund; Misop Han; Chandana A Reddy; Jay P Ciezki; Tommy Nyberg; Eric A Klein
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2015-07-10       Impact factor: 20.096

10.  The heterogeneous Gleason 7 carcinoma of the prostate: analyses of low and high grade (risk) carcinomas with criteria of the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP).

Authors:  Burkhard Helpap; Daniel Ringli; David Adler; Nicolas Wernert; Glen Kristiansen
Journal:  Pathol Res Pract       Date:  2013-02-15       Impact factor: 3.250

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  [Grading of prostate cancer].

Authors:  G Kristiansen; W Roth; B Helpap
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 1.011

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.