Clinical Utility of Quantitative Gleason Grading in Prostate Biopsies and Prostatectomy Specimens.

[1]  Gleason Df.  Classification of prostatic carcinomas. , 1966 .

[2]  T. Stamey,et al.  Histologic differentiation, cancer volume, and pelvic lymph node metastasis in adenocarcinoma of the prostate , 1990, Cancer.

[3]  D. Gleason,et al.  Histologic grading of prostate cancer: a perspective. , 1992, Human pathology.

[4]  T. Stamey,et al.  Biological determinants of cancer progression in men with prostate cancer. , 1999, JAMA.

[5]  A W Partin,et al.  Prognostic significance of Gleason score 3+4 versus Gleason score 4+3 tumor at radical prostatectomy. , 2000, Urology.

[6]  A. Billis.  Percent Gleason grade (4/5) as prognostic factor in prostate cancer diagnosed at transurethral resection. , 2002, International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology.

[7]  Alan W Partin,et al.  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? , 2002, The Journal of urology.

[8]  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.

[9]  Haiqun Lin,et al.  Percentage of Gleason pattern 4 and 5 predicts survival after radical prostatectomy , 2007, Cancer.

[10]  R. V. D. van den Bergh,et al.  Prospective validation of active surveillance in prostate cancer: the PRIAS study. , 2007, European urology.

[11]  M. Terris,et al.  Risk stratification of men with Gleason score 7 to 10 tumors by primary and secondary Gleason score: results from the SEARCH database. , 2007, Urology.

[12]  A. Haese*,et al.  Contemporary prostate cancer prevalence among T1c biopsy-referred men with a prostate-specific antigen level < or = 4.0 ng per milliliter. , 2008, European urology.

[13]  Alan Horwich,et al.  Predicting the probability of deferred radical treatment for localised prostate cancer managed by active surveillance. , 2008, European urology.

[14]  J. Ciezki,et al.  Comparison of biochemical relapse-free survival between primary Gleason score 3 and primary Gleason score 4 for biopsy Gleason score 7 prostate cancer. , 2009, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[15]  Andrew J. Evans,et al.  Interactive digital slides with heat maps: a novel method to improve the reproducibility of Gleason grading , 2011, Virchows Archiv.

[16]  Kirsten L. Greene,et al.  Outcomes of active surveillance for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. , 2011, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[17]  Identification of Gleason pattern 5 on prostatic needle core biopsy: frequency of underdiagnosis and relation to morphology , 2011 .

[18]  J. Moul,et al.  Impact of primary Gleason grade on risk stratification for Gleason score 7 prostate cancers. , 2012, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[19]  R. V. D. van den Bergh,et al.  Outcomes of initially expectantly managed patients with low or intermediate risk screen‐detected localized prostate cancer , 2012, BJU international.

[20]  J. Epstein,et al.  Gleason pattern 5 is frequently underdiagnosed on prostate needle-core biopsy. , 2012, Urology.

[21]  L. Klotz.  Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer , 2012, F1000 medicine reports.

[22]  D. Berney,et al.  Standardization of Gleason grading among 337 European pathologists , 2013, Histopathology.

[23]  Contemporary Grading for Prostate Cancer: Implications for Patient Care , 2013 .

[24]  Mohammad Hassan Murad,et al.  Early detection of prostate cancer: AUA Guideline. , 2013, The Journal of urology.

[25]  P. Carroll,et al.  Prostate cancer early detection, version 1.2014. Featured updates to the NCCN Guidelines. , 2014, Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN.

[26]  P. Carroll,et al.  Prostate cancer early detection version 1 , 2014 .

[27]  T. H. van der Kwast,et al.  EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. , 2014, European urology.

[28]  H. G. van der Poel,et al.  Can we expand active surveillance criteria to include biopsy Gleason 3+4 prostate cancer? A multi-institutional study of 2,323 patients. , 2015, Urologic oncology.

[29]  Vergleich von vier Behandlungsoptionen beim Prostatakarzinom mit niedrigem Risiko , 2015, Der Urologe.

[30]  [Comparison of four treatment options for low-risk prostate cancer: Preference-based randomized study for the evaluation of four treatment modalities in prostate cancer with low or "early intermediate" risk (PREFERE) - trial AP 65/11 of the AUO]. , 2015, Der Urologe. Ausg. A.