Contemporary Gleason grading and novel Grade Groups in clinical practice

Epstein, 2005, The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma, Am J Surg Pathol, 29, 1228, 10.1097/01.pas.0000173646.99337.b1

Epstein, 2016, The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system, Am J Surg Pathol, 40, 244, 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000530

Pierorazio, 2013, Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system, BJU Int, 111, 753, 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11611.x

Epstein, 2016, A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason Score, Eur Urol, 69, 428, 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.046

Loeb, 2016, Evaluation of the 2015 Gleason grade groups in a nationwide population-based cohort, Eur Urol, 69, 1135, 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.11.036

Rubin, 2016, Genomic correlates to the newly proposed grading prognostic groups for prostate cancer, Eur Urol, 69, 557, 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.10.040

Epstein, 2000, Gleason score 2-4 adenocarcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: a diagnosis that should not be made, Am J Surg Pathol, 24, 477, 10.1097/00000478-200004000-00001

Berg, 2016, The impact of the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology consensus guidelines on Gleason grading: a matched pair analysis, BJU Int, 117, 883, 10.1111/bju.13439

Billis, 2008, The impact of the 2005 international society of urological pathology consensus conference on standard Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in needle biopsies, J Urol, 180, 548, 10.1016/j.juro.2008.04.018

Epstein, 2010, An update of the Gleason grading system, J Urol, 183, 433, 10.1016/j.juro.2009.10.046

Amin, 2014, 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, Arch Pathol Lab Med, 138, 1387, 10.5858/arpa.2014-0219-SA

D’Amico, 1998, The combination of preoperative prostate specific antigen and postoperative pathological findings to predict prostate specific antigen outcome in clinically localized prostate cancer, J Urol, 160, 2096, 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)62251-1

Chan, 2000, Prognostic significance of Gleason score 3+4 versus Gleason score 4+3 tumor at radical prostatectomy, Urology, 56, 823, 10.1016/S0090-4295(00)00753-6

Makarov, 2002, 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, 167, 2440, 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)65000-8

Amin, 2011, Gleason score 7 prostate cancer on needle biopsy: relation of primary pattern 3 or 4 to pathological stage and progression after radical prostatectomy, J Urol, 186, 1286, 10.1016/j.juro.2011.05.075

Matoso, 2016, Grading of prostate cancer: past, present, and future, Curr Urol Rep, 17, 25, 10.1007/s11934-016-0576-4

Smith, 2016, Stage grouping, J Urol, 195, 1723, 10.1016/j.juro.2016.03.072

Zietman, 2016, Describing the grade of prostate cancer: consistent use of contemporary terminology is now required, Eur Urol, 70, 1, 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.03.007

Ross, 2012, Do adenocarcinomas of the prostate with Gleason score (GS) </ = 6 have the potential to metastasize to lymph nodes?, Am J Surg Pathol, 36, 1346, 10.1097/PAS.0b013e3182556dcd

Sauter, 2016, Clinical utility of quantitative Gleason grading in prostate biopsies and prostatectomy specimens, Eur Urol, 69, 592, 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.10.029

Tsao, 2015, Patients with biopsy Gleason 9 and 10 prostate cancer have significantly worse outcomes compared to patients with Gleason 8 disease, J Urol, 194, 91, 10.1016/j.juro.2015.01.078

Berney, 2016, Validation of a contemporary prostate cancer grading system using prostate cancer death as outcome, Br J Cancer, 114, 1078, 10.1038/bjc.2016.86

Ploussard, 2015, Can we expand active surveillance criteria to include biopsy Gleason 3+4 prostate cancer? A multiinstitutional study of 2323 patients, Urol Oncol, 33, 71, 10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.07.007

Chen, 2016, Active surveillance for the management of localized prostate cancer (Cancer Care Ontario guideline): American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Endorsement Summary, J Oncol Pract, 12, 267, 10.1200/JOP.2015.010017