Development and multi‐institutional validation of an upgrading risk tool for Gleason 6 prostate cancer

Many patients with low‐risk prostate cancer (PC) who are diagnosed with Gleason score 6 at biopsy are ultimately found to harbor higher grade PC (Gleason ≥ 7) at radical prostatectomy. This finding increases risk of recurrence and cancer‐specific mortality. Validated clinical tools that are available preoperatively are needed to improve the ability to recognize likelihood of upgrading in patients with low‐risk PC.

[1]  D. Rubin.  Multiple Imputation After 18+ Years , 1996 .

[2]  M. Terris,et al.  Prostate size and risk of high-grade, advanced prostate cancer and biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy: a search database study. , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[3]  William J Catalona,et al.  Accuracy of prostate weight estimation by digital rectal examination versus transrectal ultrasonography. , 2005, The Journal of urology.

[4]  N. Petrelli,et al.  Hepatic resection: the last surgical frontier for colorectal cancer. , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[5]  Michael McCormack,et al.  Development and internal validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of prostate cancer Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology. , 2006, European urology.

[6]  John T. Wei,et al.  Incidence of initial local therapy among men with lower-risk prostate cancer in the United States. , 2006, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[7]  E. Elkin,et al.  Decision Curve Analysis: A Novel Method for Evaluating Prediction Models , 2006, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[8]  A. Evans,et al.  Prostate cancers scored as Gleason 6 on prostate biopsy are frequently Gleason 7 tumors at radical prostatectomy: implication on outcome. , 2006, The Journal of urology.

[9]  F. Hamdy.  Re: Incidence of Initial Local Therapy Among Men with Lower-Risk Prostate Cancer in the United States , 2006 .

[10]  P. Troncoso,et al.  Effect of prostate volume on tumor grade in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy in the era of extended prostatic biopsies. , 2007, The Journal of urology.

[11]  M. Terris,et al.  Upgrading and downgrading of prostate needle biopsy specimens: risk factors and clinical implications. , 2006, Urology.

[12]  A. Evans,et al.  Clinical predictors of gleason score upgrading , 2007, Cancer.

[13]  C. Magi-Galluzzi,et al.  Prostate cancer volume at biopsy predicts clinically significant upgrading. , 2008, The Journal of urology.

[14]  U. Capitanio,et al.  The probability of Gleason score upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy can be accurately predicted , 2009, International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association.

[15]  U. Capitanio,et al.  Biopsy core number represents one of foremost predictors of clinically significant gleason sum upgrading in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. , 2009, Urology.

[16]  T. Tammela,et al.  Outcomes of men with screen-detected prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance who were managed expectantly. , 2009, European urology.

[17]  M. Kattan,et al.  A nomogram for predicting upgrading in patients with low‐ and intermediate‐grade prostate cancer in the era of extended prostate sampling , 2010, BJU international.

[18]  M. Soloway,et al.  Careful selection and close monitoring of low-risk prostate cancer patients on active surveillance minimizes the need for treatment. , 2010, European urology.

[19]  Y. Naya,et al.  External validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of prostate cancer Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology among Japanese patients. , 2010, Urology.

[20]  L. Arab,et al.  Obesity and Prostate Cancer Aggressiveness among African and Caucasian Americans in a Population-Based Study , 2011, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

[21]  A. Tewari,et al.  Clinical and pathologic predictors of Gleason sum upgrading in patients after radical prostatectomy: results from a single institution series. , 2011, Urologic oncology.

[22]  S. Herrell,et al.  Prostate size as a predictor of Gleason score upgrading in patients with low risk prostate cancer. , 2011, The Journal of urology.

[23]  Alan W Partin,et al.  Active Surveillance Program for Prostate Cancer: An Update of the Johns Hopkins Experience , 2011 .

[24]  Kirsten L. Greene,et al.  The relationship between prostate specific antigen change and biopsy progression in patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer. , 2011, The Journal of urology.

[25]  J. Brooks,et al.  Letters to the Editor/Errata Re: Small Prostate Size and High Grade Disease—Biology or Artifact? , 2011 .

[26]  Misop Han,et al.  Predicting 15-year prostate cancer specific mortality after radical prostatectomy. , 2011, The Journal of urology.

[27]  J. Oh,et al.  Prostate‐specific antigen vs prostate‐specific antigen density as a predictor of upgrading in men diagnosed with Gleason 6 prostate cancer by contemporary multicore prostate biopsy , 2012, BJU international.

[28]  M. Jordá,et al.  Pathologic prostate cancer characteristics in patients eligible for active surveillance: a head-to-head comparison of contemporary protocols. , 2012, European urology.

[29]  Bruce J Trock,et al.  Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades. , 2012, European urology.

[30]  A. Hoznek,et al.  Analysis of outcomes after radical prostatectomy in patients eligible for active surveillance (PRIAS) , 2013, BJU international.

[31]  Chin-Lee Wu,et al.  Smaller prostate gland size and older age predict Gleason score upgrading. , 2013, Urologic oncology.