• 1
    Murphy GP, Busch C, Abrahamsson PA et al. Histopathology of localized prostate cancer. Consensus Conference on diagnosis and prognostic parameters in localized prostate cancer. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl 1994; 162: 742
  • 2
    Gleason DF. Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother Rep 1966; 50: 1258
  • 3
    Gleason DF. Histologic grading and clinical staging of prostatic carcinoma. In TannenbaumM ed. Urologic Pathology: the Prostate. Philadelphia: Lea and Feibiger, 1977
  • 4
    Amin MB, Boccon-Gibod L, Egeved L et al. Prognostic and predictive factors and reporting of prostate carcinoma in prostate needle biopsy specimens. 2004 WHO-sponsored International Consultation Consensus. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2005; in press
  • 5
    Epstein JI, Amin MB, Boccon-Gibod L et al. Prognostic factors and reporting of prostate carcinoma in radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy specimens. 2004 WHO-sponsored International Consultation Consensus. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2005; in press
  • 6
    Bostwick DG, Grignon DJ, Hammond ME et al. Prognostic factors in prostate cancer. College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999. Arch Pathol Laboratory Med 2000; 124: 9951000
  • 7
    Freedland SJ, Aronson WJ, Terris MK et al. The percentage of prostate needle biopsy cores with carcinoma from the more involved side of the biopsy as a predictor of prostate specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy: results from the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital (SEARCH) database. Cancer 2003; 98: 234450
  • 8
    Gancarczyk KJ, Wu H, McLeod DG et al. Using the percentage of biopsy cores positive for cancer, pretreatment PSA, and highest biopsy Gleason sum to predict pathologic stage after radical prostatectomy: the Center for Prostate Disease Research nomograms. Urology 2003; 61: 58995
  • 9
    Partin AW, Kattan MW, Subong EN et al. Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update. JAMA 1997; 277: 144551
  • 10
    D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB et al. Combined modality staging of prostate carcinoma and its utility in predicting pathologic stage and postoperative prostate specific antigen failure. Urology 1997; 49: 2330
  • 11
    Ohori M, Kattan MW, Koh H et al. Predicting the presence and side of extracapsular extension: a nomogram for staging prostate cancer. J Urol 2004; 171: 18449
  • 12
    Pisansky TM, Kahn MJ, Rasp GM, Cha SS, Haddock MG, Bostwick DG. A multiple prognostic index predictive of disease outcome after irradiation for clinically localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer 1997; 79: 33744
  • 13
    Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Wheeler TM et al. Counseling men with prostate cancer. a nomogram for predicting the presence of small, moderately differentiated, confined tumors. J Urol 2003; 170: 17927
  • 14
    Holmberg L, Bill-Axelson A, Helgesen F et al. A randomized trial comparing radical prostatectomy with watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2002; 347: 7819
  • 15
    Koppie TM, Grossfeld GD, Miller D et al. Patterns of treatment of patients with prostate cancer initially managed with surveillance: results from The CaPSURE database. Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urological Research Endeavor. J Urol 2000; 164: 818
  • 16
    Amin MB, Grignon D, Humphrey PH, Srigley JR. Gleason Grading of Prostate Cancer: A Contemporary Approach. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2004
  • 17
    Kunz GM Jr, Epstein JI. Should each core with prostate cancer be assigned a separate Gleason score? Hum Pathol 2003; 34: 9114
  • 18
    Zhou M, Epstein JI. The reporting of prostate cancer on needle biopsy: prognostic and therapeutic implications and the utility of diagnostic markers. Pathology 2003; 35: 4729
  • 19
    Rubin MA, Bismar TA, Curtis S, Montie JE. 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? Am J Surg Pathol 2004; 28: 94652
  • 20
    Augustin H, Eggert T, Wenske S et al. Comparison of accuracy between the Partin tables of 1997 and 2001 to predict final pathological stage in clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2004; 171: 17781
  • 21
    Graefen M, Ohori M, Karakiewicz PI et al. Assessment of the enhancement in predictive accuracy provided by systematic biopsy in predicting outcome for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2004; 171: 2003
  • 22
    Grober ED, Tsihlias J, Jewett MA et al. Correlation of the primary Gleason pattern on prostate needle biopsy with clinico-pathological factors in Gleason 7 tumors. Can J Urol 2004; 11: 215762
  • 23
    Makarov 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: 24402
  • 24
    Epstein 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: 4778
  • 25
    Allsbrook WC Jr, Mangold KA, Johnson MH et al. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: urologic pathologists. Hum Pathol 2001; 32: 7480
  • 26
    Christensen WN, Partin AW, Walsh PC, Epstein JI. Pathologic findings in clinical stage A2 prostate cancer. Relation of tumor volume, grade, and location to pathologic stage. Cancer 1990; 65: 10217
  • 27
    Han M, Partin AW, Pound CR, Epstein JI, Walsh PC. Long-term biochemical disease-free and cancer-specific survival following anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy. The 15-year Johns Hopkins experience. Urol Clin North Am 2001; 28: 55565
  • 28
    Epstein JI, Partin AW, Sauvageot J, Walsh PC. Prediction of progression following radical prostatectomy. A multivariate analysis of 721 men with long-term follow-up. Am J Surg Pathol 1996; 20: 28692
  • 29
    Chan 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: 8237
  • 30
    Oefelein MG, Smith ND, Grayhack JT, Schaeffer AJ, McVary KT. Long-term results of radical retropubic prostatectomy in men with high grade carcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 1997; 158: 14605
  • 31
    Sakr WA, Tefilli MV, Grignon DJ et al. Gleason score 7 prostate cancer. a heterogeneous entity? Correlation with pathologic parameters and disease-free survival. Urology 2000; 56: 7304
  • 32
    Babaian RJ, Troncoso P, Bhadkamkar VA, Johnston DA. Analysis of clinico-pathologic factors predicting outcome after radical prostatectomy. Cancer 2001; 91: 141422
  • 33
    Guillonneau B, El Fettouh H, Baumert H et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: oncological evaluation after 1,000 cases a Montsouris Institute. J Urol 2003; 169: 12616
  • 34
    Oefelein MG, Grayhack JT, McVary KT. Survival after radical retropubic prostatectomy of men with clinically localized high grade carcinoma of the prostate. Cancer 1995; 76: 253542
  • 35
    Ohori M, Goad JR, Wheeler TM, Eastham JA, Thompson TC, Scardino PT. Can radical prostatectomy alter the progression of poorly differentiated prostate cancer? J Urol 1994; 152: 18439
  • 36
    Mian BM, Troncoso P, Okihara K et al. Outcome of patients with Gleason score 8 or higher prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy alone. J Urol 2002; 167: 167580
  • 37
    Rioux-Leclercq NC, Chan DY, Epstein JI. Prediction of outcome after radical prostatectomy in men with organ-confined Gleason score 8–10 adenocarcinoma. Urology 2002; 60: 6669
  • 38
    Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Yemoto CM, Sigal BM, Johnstone IM. Biological determinants of cancer progression in men with prostate cancer. JAMA 1999; 281: 1395400
  • 39
    Allsbrook WC Jr, Mangold KA, Yang X, Epstein J. The Gleason grading system: an overview. J Urol Path 1999; 10: 14157
  • 40
    Aihara M, Wheeler TM, Ohori M, Scardino PT. Heterogeneity of prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology 1994; 43: 606
  • 41
    Pan CC, Potter SR, Partin AW, Epstein JI. The prognostic significance of tertiary Gleason patterns of higher grade in radical prostatectomy specimens: a proposal to modify the Gleason grading system. Am J Surg Pathol 2000; 24: 5639
  • 42
    Mosse CA, Magi-Galluzzi C, Tsuzuki T, Epstein JI. The prognostic significance of tertiary Gleason pattern 5 in radical prostatectomy specimens. Am J Surg Pathol 2004; 28: 3948
  • 43
    Garnett JE, Oyasu R, Grayhack JT. The accuracy of diagnostic biopsy specimens in predicting tumor grades by Gleason's classification of radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 1984; 131: 6903
  • 44
    Mills SE, Fowler JE Jr. Gleason histologic grading of prostatic carcinoma. Correlation between biopsy and prostatectomy specimens. Cancer 1986; 57: 3469
  • 45
    Humphrey PA. Prostate Pathology. Chicago: ASCP Press, 2003: 138374
  • 46
    Algaba F, Chivite A, Santaularia JM, Oliver A. Evidence of the radical prostatectomy Gleason score in the biopsy Gleason score. Actas Urol Esp 2004; 28: 216
  • 47
    Rubin MA, Dunn R, Kambham PA et al. Should a Gleason score be assigned to a minute focus of carcinoma on prostate biopsy? Am J Surg Pathol 2000; 24: 163440
  • 48
    Steinberg DM, Sauvageot J, Piantadosi S, Epstein JI. Correlation of prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason grade in academic and community setting. Am J Surg Pathol 1997; 21: 56676
  • 49
    Cintra ML, Billis A. Histologic grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma. Intra-observer reproducibility of the Mostofi, Gleason, and Böcking grading systems. Int Urol Nephrol 1991; 23: 44954
  • 50
    Özdamar SO, Sarikaya S, Yildiz L et al. Intra-observer and interobserver reproducibility of WHO and Gleason histologic grading systems in prostatic adenocarcinomas. Int Urol Nephrol 1996; 28: 737
  • 51
    Egevad L, Allsbrook WC, Epstein JI. Current practice of Gleason grading among genitourinary pathologists. Hum Pathol 2005; in press