View Item 

Show simple item record

Independent surgical validation of the new prostate cancer grade‐grouping system
dc.contributor.authorSpratt, Daniel E.
dc.contributor.authorCole, Adam I.
dc.contributor.authorPalapattu, Ganesh S.
dc.contributor.authorWeizer, Alon Z.
dc.contributor.authorJackson, William C.
dc.contributor.authorMontgomery, Jeffrey S.
dc.contributor.authorDess, Robert T.
dc.contributor.authorZhao, Shuang G.
dc.contributor.authorLee, Jae Y.
dc.contributor.authorWu, Angela
dc.contributor.authorKunju, Lakshmi P.
dc.contributor.authorTalmich, Emily
dc.contributor.authorMiller, David C.
dc.contributor.authorHollenbeck, Brent K.
dc.contributor.authorTomlins, Scott A.
dc.contributor.authorFeng, Felix Y.
dc.contributor.authorMehra, Rohit
dc.contributor.authorMorgan, Todd M.
dc.date.accessioned2016-11-18T21:24:12Z
dc.date.available2018-01-08T19:47:53Zen
dc.date.issued2016-11
dc.identifier.citationSpratt, Daniel E.; Cole, Adam I.; Palapattu, Ganesh S.; Weizer, Alon Z.; Jackson, William C.; Montgomery, Jeffrey S.; Dess, Robert T.; Zhao, Shuang G.; Lee, Jae Y.; Wu, Angela; Kunju, Lakshmi P.; Talmich, Emily; Miller, David C.; Hollenbeck, Brent K.; Tomlins, Scott A.; Feng, Felix Y.; Mehra, Rohit; Morgan, Todd M. (2016). "Independent surgical validation of the new prostate cancer grade‐grouping system." BJU International 118(5): 763-769.
dc.identifier.issn1464-4096
dc.identifier.issn1464-410X
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/134477
dc.publisherInTech
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.
dc.subject.otherprostate cancer grading
dc.subject.otherprostate cancer
dc.subject.otherradical prostatectomy
dc.titleIndependent surgical validation of the new prostate cancer grade‐grouping system
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollow
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelInternal Medicine and Specialties
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciences
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Reviewed
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/134477/1/bju13488.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/134477/2/bju13488_am.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/bju.13488
dc.identifier.sourceBJU International
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGleason DF, Mellinger GT. Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol 1974; 111: 58 – 64
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGleason DF. Histologic grading of prostate cancer: a perspective. Hum Pathol 1992; 23: 273 – 9
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHelpap B, Egevad L. The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Virchows Arch 2006; 449: 622 – 7
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTollefson MK, Leibovich BC, Slezak JM, Zincke H, Blute ML. Long‐term prognostic significance of primary Gleason pattern in patients with Gleason score 7 prostate cancer: impact on prostate cancer specific survival. J Urol 2006; 175: 547 – 51
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMakarov DV, Sanderson H, Partin AW, Epstein JI. 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? J Urol 2002; 167: 2440 – 2
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChan TY, Partin AW, Walsh PC, Epstein JI. Prognostic significance of Gleason score 3+4 versus Gleason score 4+3 tumor at radical prostatectomy. Urology 2000; 56: 823 – 7
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBurdick MJ, Reddy CA, Ulchaker J et al. Comparison of biochemical relapse‐free survival between primary Gleason score 3 and primary Gleason score 4 for biopsy Gleason score 7 prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009; 73: 1439 – 45
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStenmark MH, Blas K, Halverson S, Sandler HM, Feng FY, Hamstra DA. Continued benefit to androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer patients treated with dose‐escalated radiation therapy across multiple definitions of high‐risk disease. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011; 81: e335 – 44
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSabolch A, Feng FY, Daignault‐Newton S et al. Gleason pattern 5 is the greatest risk factor for clinical failure and death from prostate cancer after dose‐escalated radiation therapy and hormonal ablation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011; 81: e351 – 60
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKoloff ZB, Hamstra DA, Wei JT et al. Impact of tertiary Gleason pattern 5 on prostate cancer aggressiveness: lessons from a contemporary single institution radical prostatectomy series. Asian J Urol 2015; 2: 53 – 8
dc.identifier.citedreferencePierorazio PM, Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI. Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int 2013; 111: 753 – 60
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEpstein 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
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSpratt DE, Zumsteg Z, Ghadjar P et al. Prognostic importance of Gleason 7 disease among patients treated with external beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer: results of a detailed biopsy core analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2013; 85: 1254 – 61
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTomaszewski JJ, Chen YF, Bertolet M, Ristau BT, Woldemichael E, Nelson JB. Obesity is not associated with aggressive pathologic features or biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Urology 2013; 81: 992 – 6
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSooriakumaran P, Ploumidis A, Nyberg T et al. The impact of length and location of positive margins in predicting biochemical recurrence after robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy with a minimum follow‐up of 5 years. BJU Int 2015; 115: 106 – 13
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEpstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL, Committee IG. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005; 29: 1228 – 42.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGleason DF. Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother Rep 1966; 50: 125 – 8
dc.identifier.citedreferencePartin AW, Yoo J, Carter HB et al. The use of prostate specific antigen, clinical stage and Gleason score to predict pathological stage in men with localized prostate cancer. J Urol 1993; 150: 110 – 4
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHan M, Partin AW, Zahurak M, Piantadosi S, Epstein JI, Walsh PC. Biochemical (prostate specific antigen) recurrence probability following radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2003; 169: 517 – 23
dc.identifier.citedreferenceZhou P, Chen MH, McLeod D, Carroll PR, Moul JW, D’Amico AV. Predictors of prostate cancer‐specific mortality after radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 6992 – 8
dc.identifier.citedreferenceYeo L, Patel D, Bach C et al. The Development of the Modern Prostate Biopsy. In Bissada NK ed, Prostate Biopsy. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech, 2011. Available at: http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/24668/InTech-The_development_of_the_modern_prostate_biopsy.pdf. Accessed March 2016
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDong F, Wang C, Farris AB et al. Impact on the clinical outcome of prostate cancer by the 2005 international society of urological pathology modified Gleason grading system. Am J Surg Pathol 2012; 36: 838 – 43
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGofrit ON, Zorn KC, Steinberg GD, Zagaja GP, Shalhav AL. The Will Rogers phenomenon in urological oncology. J Urol 2008; 179: 28 – 33
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWeiner AB, Etzioni R, Eggener SE. Ongoing Gleason grade migration in localized prostate cancer and implications for use of active surveillance. Eur Urol 2014; 66: 611 – 2
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEpstein JI. Gleason score 2–4 adenocarcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: a diagnosis that should not be made. Am J Surg Pathol 2000; 24: 477 – 8
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLoeb S, Montorsi F, Catto JW. Future‐proofing Gleason grading: what to call Gleason 6 prostate cancer? Eur Urol 2015; 68: 1 – 2
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNanda 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
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
bju13488.pdf
Size:
222.5KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open
Name:
bju13488_am.pdf
Size:
335.8KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.