Prostate Adenocarcinoma Grade Group 1: Rationale for Retaining a Cancer Label in the 2022 World Health Organization Classification.

[1]  Jeong Hwan Park,et al.  Artificial intelligence system shows performance at the level of uropathologists for the detection and grading of prostate cancer in core needle biopsy: an independent external validation study , 2022, Modern Pathology.

[2]  J. Epstein.  Is Grade Group 1 (Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6) adenocarcinoma of the prostate really cancer? , 2021, Current opinion in urology.

[3]  A. D'Amico,et al.  NCCN Guidelines Insights: Prostate Cancer, Version 1.2021. , 2021, Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN.

[4]  S. Eggener,et al.  Should Grade Group 1 (GG1) be called cancer? , 2021, World Journal of Urology.

[5]  Christina B. Ventura,et al.  Molecular Biomarker Testing in Localized Prostate Cancer: The Critical Role of Pathologists. , 2020, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[6]  J. Witjes,et al.  Multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging should be preferred over digital rectal examination for prostate cancer local staging and disease risk classification. , 2020, Urology.

[7]  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.

[8]  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.

[9]  A. Partin,et al.  Utility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the risk stratification of men with Grade Group 1 prostate cancer on active surveillance , 2020, BJU international.

[10]  K. Macura,et al.  Active Surveillance of Grade Group 1 Prostate Cancer: Long-term Outcomes from a Large Prospective Cohort. , 2020, European urology.

[11]  C. Almeras,et al.  Performance of systematic, MRI-targeted biopsies alone or in combination for the prediction of unfavourable disease in MRI-positive low-risk prostate cancer patients eligible for active surveillance , 2019, World Journal of Urology.

[12]  J. Epstein.  Prostate cancer grading: a decade after the 2005 modified system , 2018, Modern Pathology.

[13]  Mahul B Amin,et al.  Contemporary Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: An Update With Discussion on Practical Issues to Implement the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma , 2017, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[14]  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.

[15]  Alan W Partin,et al.  Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system , 2013, BJU international.

[16]  Eric A Singer,et al.  Gleason score 6 adenocarcinoma: should it be labeled as cancer? , 2012, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[17]  Hashim Uddin Ahmed,et al.  Do low-grade and low-volume prostate cancers bear the hallmarks of malignancy? , 2012, The Lancet. Oncology.

[18]  V. Moyer,et al.  Screening for Prostate Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement , 2012, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[19]  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.

[20]  G. Netto,et al.  Emerging critical role of molecular testing in diagnostic genitourinary pathology. , 2012, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[21]  J. Rosai.  The benign versus malignant paradigm in oncologic pathology: a critique. , 2008, Seminars in diagnostic pathology.

[22]  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.

[23]  G. Burnstock,et al.  A comparative study of electrical field stimulation of the guinea-pig, ferret and marmoset urinary bladder. , 1985, European journal of pharmacology.