Prostate cancer growth patterns beyond the Gleason score: entering a new era of comprehensive tumour grading
暂无分享,去创建一个
Esther I Verhoef | Geert J L H van Leenders | Eva Hollemans | G. V. van Leenders | Esther I. Verhoef | E. Hollemans
[1] J. Epstein,et al. Can Basal Cells Be Seen in Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate?: An Immunohistochemical Study Using High Molecular Weight Cytokeratin (Clone 34&bgr;E12) Antibody , 2002, The American journal of surgical pathology.
[2] G. Mohapatra,et al. Tumor necrosis in radical prostatectomies with high-grade prostate cancer is associated with multiple poor prognostic features and a high prevalence of residual disease. , 2017, Human pathology.
[3] Daan Nieboer,et al. Gleason grade 4 prostate adenocarcinoma patterns: an interobserver agreement study among genitourinary pathologists , 2016, Histopathology.
[4] P. Carroll,et al. Expansile cribriform Gleason pattern 4 has histopathologic and molecular features of aggressiveness and greater risk of biochemical failure compared to glomerulation Gleason pattern 4 , 2020, The Prostate.
[5] Esther I Verhoef,et al. Prostate cancer outcomes of men with biopsy Gleason score 6 and 7 without cribriform or intraductal carcinoma. , 2016, European journal of cancer.
[6] J. McKenney,et al. Impact of Cribriform Pattern and Intraductal Carcinoma on Gleason 7 Prostate Cancer Treated with External Beam Radiotherapy. , 2019, The Journal of urology.
[7] C. Morash,et al. Cribriform morphology predicts upstaging after radical prostatectomy in patients with Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 prostate cancer at transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided needle biopsy , 2015, Virchows Archiv.
[8] S. Dhanasekaran,et al. The long noncoding RNA SChLAP1 promotes aggressive prostate cancer and antagonizes the SWI/SNF complex , 2013, Nature Genetics.
[9] W. V. van Cappellen,et al. Three-dimensional analysis reveals two major architectural subgroups of prostate cancer growth patterns , 2019, Modern Pathology.
[10] J. Epstein,et al. Gleason grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma with glomeruloid features on needle biopsy. , 2009, Human pathology.
[11] M. Cooperberg,et al. Genomic Markers in Prostate Cancer Decision Making. , 2018, European urology.
[12] Bing Zhang,et al. Combined clinical characteristics and multiparametric MRI parameters for prediction of cribriform morphology in intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients. , 2020, Urologic oncology.
[13] J. McKenney,et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of Prostate Biopsy for Detecting Cribriform Gleason Pattern 4 Carcinoma and Intraductal Carcinoma in Paired Radical Prostatectomy Specimens: Implications for Active Surveillance. , 2020, The Journal of urology.
[14] Andrew J Ewald,et al. Morphogenesis of epithelial tubes: Insights into tube formation, elongation, and elaboration. , 2010, Developmental biology.
[15] J. McKenney. The present and future of prostate cancer histopathology , 2017, Current opinion in urology.
[16] J. Epstein,et al. Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: histologic features and clinical significance , 2006, Modern Pathology.
[17] T. Tsuzuki,et al. Propensity score‐matched comparison of docetaxel and androgen receptor axis‐targeted agents in patients with castration‐resistant intraductal carcinoma of the prostate , 2019, BJU international.
[18] R. Henrique,et al. Relative copy number gain of MYC in diagnostic needle biopsies is an independent prognostic factor for prostate cancer patients. , 2007, European urology.
[19] M. Loda,et al. Genetic and Epigenetic Determinants of Aggressiveness in Cribriform Carcinoma of the Prostate , 2018, Molecular Cancer Research.
[20] Toyonori Tsuzuki,et al. Diagnosis of “Poorly Formed Glands” Gleason Pattern 4 Prostatic Adenocarcinoma on Needle Biopsy: An Interobserver Reproducibility Study Among Urologic Pathologists With Recommendations , 2015, The American journal of surgical pathology.
[21] J. Epstein,et al. Differential Diagnosis of Intraductal Lesions of the Prostate , 2016, The American journal of surgical pathology.
[22] A. Chinnaiyan,et al. Correlation between cribriform/intraductal prostatic adenocarcinoma and percent Gleason pattern 4 to a 22-gene genomic classifier. , 2019, The Prostate.
[23] Lawrence D. True,et al. 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 D , 2014, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.
[24] Adam K Glaser,et al. Open-Top Light-Sheet Microscopy Image Atlas of Prostate Core Needle Biopsies. , 2019, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.
[25] J. Cheville,et al. Reporting Practices and Resource Utilization in the Era of Intraductal Carcinoma of the Prostate , 2019, The American journal of surgical pathology.
[26] Ping Yang,et al. Architectural Heterogeneity and Cribriform Pattern Predict Adverse Clinical Outcome for Gleason Grade 4 Prostatic Adenocarcinoma , 2013, The American journal of surgical pathology.
[27] T. Tsuzuki,et al. Prognostic value of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate in radical prostatectomy specimens , 2014, The Prostate.
[28] C. Morash,et al. Evaluation of tumor morphologies and association with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy in grade group 5 prostate cancer , 2018, Virchows Archiv.
[29] G. Kristiansen. Markers of clinical utility in the differential diagnosis and prognosis of prostate cancer , 2018, Modern Pathology.
[30] G. Jenster,et al. Novel long non-coding RNAs are specific diagnostic and prognostic markers for prostate cancer , 2015, Oncotarget.
[31] A. Houtsmuller,et al. Three‐dimensional microscopic analysis of clinical prostate specimens , 2016, Histopathology.
[32] E. Messing,et al. Historical and contemporary perspectives on cribriform morphology in prostate cancer , 2018, Nature Reviews Urology.
[33] A. Evans,et al. Active surveillance for the management of localized prostate cancer: Guideline recommendations. , 2015, Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada.
[34] L. Egevad,et al. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma , 2005, The American journal of surgical pathology.
[35] Ewout W Steyerberg,et al. Cribriform growth is highly predictive for postoperative metastasis and disease-specific death in Gleason score 7 prostate cancer , 2015, Modern Pathology.
[36] Y. Bao,et al. The Prognostic Value of the Proportion and Architectural Patterns of Intraductal Carcinoma of the Prostate in Patients with De Novo Metastatic Prostate Cancer , 2019, The Journal of urology.
[37] J. Epstein,et al. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: general pathologist. , 2001, Human pathology.
[38] Ladan Fazli,et al. The potential impact of reproducibility of Gleason grading in men with early stage prostate cancer managed by active surveillance: a multi-institutional study. , 2011, The Journal of urology.
[39] G. Kristiansen,et al. Three‐dimensional reconstruction of prostate cancer architecture with serial immunohistochemical sections: hallmarks of tumour growth, tumour compartmentalisation, and implications for grading and heterogeneity , 2018, Histopathology.
[40] Hiroyuki Takahashi,et al. Cases Having a Gleason Score 3+4=7 With <5% of Gleason Pattern 4 in Prostate Needle Biopsy Show Similar Failure-free Survival and Adverse Pathology Prevalence to Gleason Score 6 Cases in a Radical Prostatectomy Cohort , 2019, The American journal of surgical pathology.
[41] A. Evans,et al. Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted Biopsy in Detection of Prostate Cancer Harboring Adverse Pathological Features of Intraductal Carcinoma and Invasive Cribriform Carcinoma , 2018, The Journal of urology.
[42] Jennifer R. Rider,et al. A Prospective Investigation of PTEN Loss and ERG Expression in Lethal Prostate Cancer. , 2015, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
[43] Ziding Feng,et al. Histologic Grading of Prostatic Adenocarcinoma Can Be Further Optimized: Analysis of the Relative Prognostic Strength of Individual Architectural Patterns in 1275 Patients From the Canary Retrospective Cohort , 2016, The American journal of surgical pathology.
[44] A. Zlotta,et al. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Glea- son Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma , 2006 .
[45] A. Mes-Masson,et al. Risk stratification of prostate cancer through quantitative assessment of PTEN loss (qPTEN). , 2020, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
[46] C. Morash,et al. Utility of Gleason pattern 4 morphologies detected on transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsies for prediction of upgrading or upstaging in Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 prostate cancer , 2016, Virchows Archiv.
[47] K. Iczkowski,et al. The 2019 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. , 2021, The American journal of surgical pathology.
[48] S. Prendeville,et al. Grading of prostate cancer: the impact of including intraductal carcinoma on the overall Grade Group assigned in diagnostic biopsies , 2020, Histopathology.
[49] M J Miller,et al. Three-dimensional microscopic image reconstruction of prostatic adenocarcinoma. , 2001, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.
[50] T. H. van der Kwast,et al. Improved Prostate Cancer Biopsy Grading by Incorporation of Invasive Cribriform and Intraductal Carcinoma in the 2014 Grade Groups. , 2020, European urology.
[51] A. Haese*,et al. Clinical Utility of Quantitative Gleason Grading in Prostate Biopsies and Prostatectomy Specimens. , 2016, European urology.
[52] G. V. van Leenders,et al. Morphological and immunohistochemical identification of epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition in clinical prostate cancer , 2015, Oncotarget.
[53] G. Litjens,et al. The 2019 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma , 2020, The American journal of surgical pathology.
[54] J. Epstein,et al. Gleason Pattern 4 with Cribriform Morphology on Biopsy is Associated with Adverse Clinicopathological Findings in a Prospective Radical Prostatectomy Cohort. , 2020, Human pathology.
[55] Wei Huang,et al. Digital quantification of five high-grade prostate cancer patterns, including the cribriform pattern, and their association with adverse outcome. , 2011, American journal of clinical pathology.
[56] D. Berney,et al. Standardization of Gleason grading among 337 European pathologists , 2013, Histopathology.
[57] T. H. van der Kwast,et al. A Prostate Cancer "Nimbosus": Genomic Instability and SChLAP1 Dysregulation Underpin Aggression of Intraductal and Cribriform Subpathologies. , 2017, European urology.
[58] D. Nieboer,et al. Presence of invasive cribriform or intraductal growth at biopsy outperforms percentage grade 4 in predicting outcome of Gleason score 3+4=7 prostate cancer , 2017, Modern Pathology.
[59] M. Roobol,et al. Concordance of cribriform architecture in matched prostate cancer biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens , 2019, Histopathology.
[60] T. H. van der Kwast,et al. Biopsy diagnosis of intraductal carcinoma is prognostic in intermediate and high risk prostate cancer patients treated by radiotherapy. , 2012, European journal of cancer.
[61] P. Zhang,et al. The prognostic implication of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and its potential predictive value in those treated with docetaxel or abiraterone as first-line therapy. , 2017, Oncotarget.
[62] B. Delahunt,et al. 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 , 2015, The American journal of surgical pathology.
[63] T. Tsuzuki,et al. Efficacy of docetaxel in castration-resistant prostate cancer patients with intraductal carcinoma of the prostate , 2018, International Journal of Clinical Oncology.
[64] John T. Wei,et al. Association of ERG/PTEN status with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer , 2018, Medical Oncology.
[65] H. G. van der Poel,et al. Clinicopathological characteristics of glomeruloid architecture in prostate cancer , 2020, Modern Pathology.
[66] R. Shah,et al. Atypical Cribriform Lesions of the Prostate: Clinical Significance, Differential Diagnosis and Current Concept of Intraductal Carcinoma of the Prostate , 2012, Advances in anatomic pathology.
[67] A. Evans,et al. Concordance of biopsy and prostatectomy diagnosis of intraductal and cribriform carcinoma in a prospectively collected data set , 2018, Histopathology.
[68] Lawrence D. True,et al. Multi-immersion open-top light-sheet microscope for high-throughput imaging of cleared tissues , 2019, Nature Communications.
[69] J. Ro,et al. Spectrum of Cribriform Proliferations of the Prostate: From Benign to Malignant. , 2018, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.
[70] D. Bostwick,et al. Detection of chromosomal anomalies and c-myc gene amplification in the cribriform pattern of prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and carcinoma by fluorescence in situ hybridization. , 1997, Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc.
[71] Andrew J. Evans,et al. Interactive digital slides with heat maps: a novel method to improve the reproducibility of Gleason grading , 2011, Virchows Archiv.
[72] Esther I Verhoef,et al. Disease-specific survival of patients with invasive cribriform and intraductal prostate cancer at diagnostic biopsy , 2016, Modern Pathology.
[73] A. Shalhav,et al. Prognostic Significance of Percentage and Architectural Types of Contemporary Gleason Pattern 4 Prostate Cancer in Radical Prostatectomy , 2016, The American journal of surgical pathology.
[74] T. H. van der Kwast,et al. Intraductal carcinoma has a minimal impact on Grade Group assignment in prostate cancer biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens , 2020, Histopathology.
[75] Esther I Verhoef,et al. Large cribriform growth pattern identifies ISUP grade 2 prostate cancer at high risk for recurrence and metastasis , 2018, Modern Pathology.
[76] T. H. van der Kwast,et al. Prognostic impact of intraductal carcinoma and large cribriform carcinoma architecture after prostatectomy in a contemporary cohort. , 2014, European journal of cancer.
[77] M. Roobol,et al. Clinical outcome comparison of Grade Group 1 and Grade Group 2 prostate cancer with and without cribriform architecture at the time of radical prostatectomy , 2020, Histopathology.
[78] B. Sarbay,et al. The association of the cribriform pattern with outcome for prostatic adenocarcinomas. , 2014, Pathology, research and practice.
[79] P. Carroll,et al. Correlation of a Commercial Genomic Risk Classifier with Histological Patterns in Prostate Cancer. , 2019, The Journal of urology.
[80] J. Epstein,et al. Gleason score 7 adenocarcinoma of the prostate with lymph node metastases: analysis of 184 radical prostatectomy specimens. , 2013, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.
[81] J. Lindberg,et al. Genetic markers associated with early cancer‐specific mortality following prostatectomy , 2013, Cancer.
[82] K. Iczkowski,et al. PTEN loss and p27 loss differ among morphologic patterns of prostate cancer, including cribriform. , 2017, Human pathology.
[83] K. Iczkowski,et al. Outcome of Gleason 3 + 5 = 8 Prostate Cancer Diagnosed on Needle Biopsy: Prognostic Comparison with Gleason 4 + 4 = 8. , 2016, The Journal of urology.
[84] Takafumi N. Yamaguchi,et al. Cribriform and intraductal prostate cancer are associated with increased genomic instability and distinct genomic alterations , 2018, BMC Cancer.
[85] Ximing J. Yang,et al. The 2019 Genitourinary Pathology Society (GUPS) White Paper on Contemporary Grading of Prostate Cancer. , 2020, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.
[86] J. Squire,et al. Recurrent copy number alterations in prostate cancer: an in silico meta-analysis of publicly available genomic data. , 2014, Cancer genetics.