Gleason drift in the NIHR ProtecT study

There is increasing evidence of Gleason score (GS) drift in prostatic core biopsies during the last two decades. The ProtecT study is a randomized controlled study and provides an excellent cohort to study the effect of time, prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) level, perineural invasion, tumour length and age on GS.

[1]  Reza Nouraei,et al.  Programmes , 2019, Nonparametric Statistical Process Control.

[2]  P. Stattin,et al.  Gleason inflation 1998–2011: a registry study of 97 168 men , 2015, BJU international.

[3]  K. Chalkidou.  About the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence - NICE. , 2013, Acta medica portuguesa.

[4]  L. Egevad,et al.  Implications of the International Society of Urological Pathology modified Gleason grading system. , 2012, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[5]  Brett Delahunt,et al.  Gleason grading: past, present and future , 2012, Histopathology.

[6]  T. Tammela,et al.  Change of tumour characteristics and treatment over time in both arms of the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. , 2010, European journal of cancer.

[7]  F. Hamdy,et al.  Latest results from the UK trials evaluating prostate cancer screening and treatment: the CAP and ProtecT studies. , 2010, European journal of cancer.

[8]  B. Delahunt,et al.  Gleason scoring: a comparison of classical and modified (International Society of Urological Pathology) criteria using nadir PSA as a clinical end point , 2010, Pathology.

[9]  Jing Ma,et al.  Gleason score and lethal prostate cancer: does 3 + 4 = 4 + 3? , 2009, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[10]  Y. Inayama,et al.  Usefulness of the 2005 International Society of Urologic Pathology Gleason grading system in prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens , 2009, BJU international.

[11]  S. Moss,et al.  Prostatic pathology reporting in the UK: development of a national external quality assurance scheme , 2007, Histopathology.

[12]  J. Cuzick,et al.  Major shifts in the treatment and prognosis of prostate cancer due to changes in pathological diagnosis and grading , 2007, BJU international.

[13]  K. Iczkowski.  Current prostate biopsy interpretation: criteria for cancer, atypical small acinar proliferation, high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, and use of immunostains. , 2009, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[14]  L. Egevad,et al.  The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens , 2006, Virchows Archiv.

[15]  R Y Ball,et al.  A study of Gleason score interpretation in different groups of UK pathologists; techniques for improving reproducibility , 2006, Histopathology.

[16]  Pierre Mongiat-Artus,et al.  Prostate Cancer and the Will Rogers Phenomenon , 2006 .

[17]  Antonio Lopez-Beltran,et al.  Current practice of Gleason grading of prostate carcinoma , 2006, Virchows Archiv.

[18]  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.

[19]  J. Oxley.  Reviewing negative prostatic core biopsies for the multidisciplinary team meeting , 2005, Histopathology.

[20]  D. Berney,et al.  Variations in the processing of prostatic needle cores in the UK; what is safe? , 2003, Journal of clinical pathology.

[21]  T. H. van der Kwast,et al.  Guidelines for processing and reporting of prostatic needle biopsies , 2003, Journal of clinical pathology.

[22]  J. Epstein,et al.  The pathological interpretation and significance of prostate needle biopsy findings: implications and current controversies. , 2001, The Journal of urology.

[23]  J. Epstein,et al.  High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia with adjacent small atypical glands on prostate biopsy. , 2001, Human pathology.

[24]  D. Bostwick,et al.  Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: urologic pathologists. , 2001, Human pathology.

[25]  E. Belgrano,et al.  [Transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate]. , 2000, Archivio italiano di urologia, andrologia : organo ufficiale [di] Societa italiana di ecografia urologica e nefrologica.

[26]  M. Rubin,et al.  Should a Gleason Score Be Assigned to a Minute Focus of Carcinoma on Prostate Biopsy? , 2000, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[27]  J. Epstein,et al.  A web‐based tutorial improves practicing pathologists' Gleason grading of images of prostate carcinoma specimens obtained by needle biopsy , 2000, Cancer.

[28]  J. Epstein,et al.  Gleason score 2-4 adenocarcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: a diagnosis that should not be made. , 2000, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[29]  J. Epstein,et al.  Use of intervening unstained slides for immunohistochemical stains for high molecular weight cytokeratin on prostate needle biopsies. , 1999, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[30]  D. Bostwick,et al.  Biopsy Pathology of the Prostate , 1998 .

[31]  A W Partin,et al.  Use of the percentage of free prostate-specific antigen to enhance differentiation of prostate cancer from benign prostatic disease: a prospective multicenter clinical trial. , 1998, JAMA.

[32]  J. Epstein.  The diagnosis and reporting of adenocarcinoma of the prostate in core needle biopsy specimens , 1996, Cancer.

[33]  F Lee,et al.  Transrectal ultrasound in the diagnosis, staging, guided needle biopsy, and screening for prostate cancer. , 1987, Progress in clinical and biological research.