Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
G. Kulkarni, G. Lockwood, A. Evans, A. Toi, J. Trachtenberg, M. Jewett, A. Finelli, N. Fleshner (2007)
Clinical predictors of gleason score upgradingCancer, 109
N. Petrelli, J. Abbruzzese, P. Mansfield, B. Minsky (2005)
Hepatic resection: the last surgical frontier for colorectal cancer.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 23 20
D. Tilki, B. Schlenker, M. John, A. Buchner, P. Stanislaus, C. Gratzke, A. Karl, G. Tan, S. Ergün, A. Tewari, C. Stief, M. Seitz, O. Reich (2011)
Clinical and pathologic predictors of Gleason sum upgrading in patients after radical prostatectomy: results from a single institution series.Urologic oncology, 29 5
R. Berglund, T. Masterson, K. Vora, S. Eggener, J. Eastham, B. Guillonneau (2008)
Pathological upgrading and up staging with immediate repeat biopsy in patients eligible for active surveillance.The Journal of urology, 180 5
F. Chun, T. Steuber, A. Erbersdobler, E. Currlin, J. Walz, T. Schlomm, A. Haese*, H. Heinzer, M. McCormack, H. Huland, M. Graefen, P. Karakiewicz (2006)
Development and internal validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of prostate cancer Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology.European urology, 49 5
Kulkarni Kulkarni, Lockwood Lockwood, Evans Evans (2007)
Clinical predictors of Gleason score upgrading: implications for patients considering watchful waiting, active surveillance, or brachytherapyCancer, 109
(2005)
Practice guideline for transperineal permanent brachytherapy of prostate cancer
R. Turley, M. Terris, C. Kane, W. Aronson, J. Presti, C. Amling, S. Freedland (2008)
The association between prostate size and Gleason score upgrading depends on the number of biopsy cores obtained: results from the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital DatabaseBJU International, 102
D. Ash, A. Flynn, J. Battermann, T. Reijke, Paulo Lavagnini, L. Blank (2000)
ESTRO/EAU/EORTC recommendations on permanent seed implantation for localized prostate cancer.Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, 57 3
A. Heidenreich, G. Aus, M. Bolla, S. Joniau, V. Matveev, H. Schmid, F. Zattoni (2009)
[EAU guidelines on prostate cancer].Actas urologicas espanolas, 33 2
C. King (2000)
Patterns of prostate cancer biopsy grading: Trends and clinical implicationsInternational Journal of Cancer, 90
Gleason Gleason, Mellinger Mellinger (1974)
Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical stagingJ. Urol., 111
S. Freedland, W. Isaacs, E. Platz, M. Terris, W. Aronson, C. Amling, J. Presti, C. Kane (2005)
Prostate size and risk of high-grade, advanced prostate cancer and biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy: a search database study.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 23 30
D. Paulson (1994)
Impact of radical prostatectomy in the management of clinically localized disease.The Journal of urology, 152 5 Pt 2
Heidenreich Heidenreich, Aus Aus, Bolla Bolla (2008)
EAU guidelines on prostate cancerEur. Urol., 53
R. Turley, R. Hamilton, M. Terris, C. Kane, W. Aronson, J. Presti, C. Amling, S. Freedland (2008)
Small transrectal ultrasound volume predicts clinically significant Gleason score upgrading after radical prostatectomy: results from the SEARCH database.The Journal of urology, 179 2
A. Vickers, E. Elkin (2006)
Decision Curve Analysis: A Novel Method for Evaluating Prediction ModelsMedical Decision Making, 26
S. Nag, D. Beyer, J. Friedland, P. Grimm, R. Nath (1999)
American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) recommendations for transperineal permanent brachytherapy of prostate cancer.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 44 4
A. D'Amico, Andrew Renshaw, Leisa Arsenault, D. Schultz, Jerome Richie (1999)
Clinical predictors of upgrading to Gleason grade 4 or 5 disease at radical prostatectomy: potential implications for patient selection for radiation and androgen suppression therapy.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 45 4
U. Capitanio, P. Karakiewicz, L. Valiquette, P. Perrotte, C. Jeldres, A. Briganti, A. Gallina, N. Suardi, A. Cestari, G. Guazzoni, A. Salonia, F. Montorsi (2009)
Biopsy core number represents one of foremost predictors of clinically significant gleason sum upgrading in patients with low-risk prostate cancer.Urology, 73 5
Z. Dotan, F. Bianco, F. Rabbani, J. Eastham, P. Fearn, H. Scher, K. Kelly, Hui-Ni Chen, H. Schöder, H. Hricak, P. Scardino, M. Kattan (2005)
Pattern of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) failure dictates the probability of a positive bone scan in patients with an increasing PSA after radical prostatectomy.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 23 9
Fei Dong, J. Jones, A. Stephenson, C. Magi-Galluzzi, Alwyn Reuther, E. Klein (2008)
Prostate cancer volume at biopsy predicts clinically significant upgrading.The Journal of urology, 179 3
Objective: To examine the rate of Gleason sum upgrading (GSU) from a sum of 6 to a Gleason sum of ≥7 in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP), who fulfilled the recommendations for low dose rate brachytherapy (Gleason sum 6, prostate‐specific antigen ≤10 ng/mL, clinical stage ≤T2a and prostate volume ≤50 mL), and to test the performance of an existing nomogram for prediction of GSU in this specific cohort of patients. Methods: The analysis focused on 414 patients, who fulfilled the European Society for Therapeutic Radiation and Oncology and American Brachytherapy Society criteria for low dose rate brachytherapy (LD‐BT) and underwent a 10‐core prostate biopsy followed by RP. The rate of GSU was tabulated and the ability of available clinical and pathological parameters for predicting GSU was tested. Finally, the performance of an existing GSU nomogram was explored. Results: The overall rate of GSU was 35.5%. When applied to LD‐BT candidates, the existing nomogram was 65.8% accurate versus 70.8% for the new nomogram. In decision curve analysis tests, the new nomogram fared substantially better than the assumption that no patient is upgraded and better than the existing nomogram. Conclusions: GSU represents an important issue in LD‐BT candidates. The new nomogram might improve patient selection for LD‐BT and cancer control outcome by excluding patients with an elevated probability of GSU.
International Journal of Urology – Wiley
Published: Oct 1, 2010
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.