REFERENCES
1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020;70(1):7–30.
2. Gleason DF. Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother Rep. 1966;50(3):125–8.
3. Gleason DF, Mellinger GT, Ardving LJ. Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol. 1974;111:58–64.
4. Gleason DF. Histologic grading of prostate cancer: A perspective. Hum Pathol. 1992;23:273–9.
5. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA. 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. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40(2):244–52.
6. Humphrey PA, Moch H, Cubilla AL, Ulbright TM, Reuter VE. The 2016 WHO Classification of Tumours of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs—Part B: Prostate and Bladder Tumours. Eur Urol. 2016;70(1):106–19.
7. Chen N, Zhou Q. The evolving gleason grading system. Chinese J Cancer Res. 2016;28(1):58–64.
8. Gordetsky J, Epstein J. Grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma: Current state and prognostic implications. Diagn Pathol. 2016;11:25.
9. Hoogland AM, Kweldam CF, Leenders GJLHV. Prognostic Histopathological and Molecular Markers on Prostate Cancer Needle-Biopsies: A Review. BioMed Research International. 2014. p. 2014.
10. Gleason DF, Mellinger GT, Arduino LJ, Bailar JC, Becker LE, Berman HI, et al. Prediction of Prognosis for Prostatic Adenocarcinoma by Combined Histological Grading and Clinical Staging. J Urol. 2017;197(2):134–9.
11. Kweldam CF, Wildhagen MF, Steyerberg EW, Bangma CH, Van Der Kwast TH, Van Leenders GJLH. Cribriform growth is highly predictive for postoperative metastasis and disease-specific death in Gleason score 7 prostate cancer. Mod Pathol. 2015;28(3):457–64.
12. Böttcher R, Kweldam CF, Livingstone J, Lalonde E, Yamaguchi TN, Huang V, et al. Cribriform and intraductal prostate cancer are associated with increased genomic instability and distinct genomic alterations. BMC Cancer. 2018;18(1):1–11.
13. Hollemans E, Verhoef EI, Bangma CH, Rietbergen J, Helleman J, Roobol MJ, et al. Large cribriform growth pattern identifies ISUP grade 2 prostate cancer at high risk for recurrence and metastasis. Mod Pathol. 2019;32(1):139–46.
14. Kweldam CF, van Leenders GJ, van der Kwast T. Grading of prostate cancer: a work in progress. Histopathology. 2019;74:146–60.
15. Stephenson AJ, Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Dotan ZA, Bianco FJ, Lilja H, et al. Defining biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: A proposal for a standardized definition. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(24):3973–8.
16. Lilja H, Ulmert D, Vickers AJ. Prostate-specific antigen and prostate cancer: Prediction, detection and monitoring. Nat Rev Cancer. 2008;8(4):268–78.
17. Mills SE, Greenson JK, Hornick JL, Longacre TA, Reuter VE. Sternberg’s diagnostic surgical pathology: Sixth edition. Sternberg’s Diagnostic Surgical Pathology: Sixth Edition. 2015. 2097–143 p.
18. Khoddami M, Khademi Y, Aghdam MK, Soltanghoraee H. Correlation between Gleason scores in needle biopsy and corresponding radical prostatectomy specimens: A twelve-year review. Iran J Pathol. 2016;11(2):120–6.
19. Ozturk E, Yikilmaz T. Gleason Score Correlation Between Prostate Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Bull Urooncol. 2018;17(1):1–4.
20. Mathieu R, Moschini M, Beyer B, Gust KM, Seisen T, Briganti A, et al. Prognostic value of the new grade groups in prostate cancer: A multi-institutional European validation study. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2017;20(2):197–202.
21. Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD, Nelson JB, Egevad L, Magi-Galluzzi C, et al. A Contemporary Prostate Cancer Grading System: A Validated Alternative to the Gleason Score. Eur Urol. 2016;69(3):428–35.
22. Cookson MS, Aus G, Burnett AL, Canby-Hagino ED, D’Amico A V., Dmochowski RR, et al. Variation in the Definition of Biochemical Recurrence in Patients Treated for Localized Prostate Cancer: The American Urological Association Prostate Guidelines for Localized Prostate Cancer Update Panel Report and Recommendations for a Standard in the Re. J Urol. 2007;177(2):540–5.
23. Tourinho-Barbosa RR, Srougi V, Nunes-Silva I, Baghdadi M, Rembeyo G, Eiffel SS, et al. Biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: What does it mean? Int Braz J Urol. 2018;44(1):14–21.
24. Ozden C, Aktas BK, Bulut S, Erbay G, Tagci S, Gokkaya CS, et al. Effect of age on biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2017;33(2):91–5.
25. Kunz I, Musch M, Roggenbuck U, Klevecka V, Kroepfl D. Tumour characteristics, oncological and functional outcomes in patients aged ≥ 70 years undergoing radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2013;111(3):24–9.
26. Fine S. Updates in AJCC/TNM Staging of Prostate Cancer Financial Relationships Summary of changes. In 2017. p. 1–6.
27. Ball MW, Partin AW, Epstein JI. Extent of extraprostatic extension independently influences biochemical recurrence-free survival: Evidence for further PT3 subclassification. Urology. 2015;85(1):161–4.
28. Jeong BC, Chalfin HJ, Lee SB, Feng Z, Epstein JI, Trock BJ, et al. The relationship between the extent of extraprostatic extension and survival following radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2015;67:342–6.
29. Eggener SE, Scardino PT, Walsh PC, Han M, Partin AW, Trock BJ, et al. Predicting 15-year prostate cancer specific mortality after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2011;185(3):869–75.
30. Pierorazio PM, Ross AE, Schaeffer EM, Epstein JI, Han M, Walsh PC, et al. A contemporary analysis of outcomes of adenocarcinoma of the prostate with seminal vesicle invasion (pT3b) after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2011;185(5):1691–7.
31. Stephenson AJ, Eggener SE, Hernandez A V., Klein EA, Kattan MW, Wood DP, et al. Do margins matter? the influence of positive surgical margins on prostate cancer-specific mortality. Eur Urol. 2014;65:675–80.
32. Zhang L, Wu B, Zha Z, Zhao H, Jiang Y, Yuan J. Positive surgical margin is associated with biochemical recurrence risk following radical prostatectomy: A meta-analysis from high-quality retrospective cohort studies. World J Surg Oncol. 2018;16(1):124.
33. Samaratunga H, Montironi R, True L, Epstein JI, Griffiths DF, Humphrey PA, et al. International society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. working group 1: Specimen handling. Mod Pathol. 2011;24(1):1–5.
34. Merrilees AD, Bethwaite PB, Russell GL, Robinson RG, Delahunt B. Parameters of perineural invasion in radical prostatectomy specimens lack prognostic significance. Mod Pathol. 2008;21:1095–100.
35. Reeves F, Hovens CM, Harewood L, Battye S, Peters JS, Costello AJ, et al. Does perineural invasion in a radical prostatectomy specimen predict biochemical recurrence in men with prostate cancer? Can Urol Assoc J. 2015;9(5–6):252–5.
36. Loeb S, Epstein JI, Humphreys EB, Walsh PC. Does perineural invasion on prostate biopsy predict adverse prostatectomy outcomes? BJU Int. 2010;105(11):1510–3.
37. Ng J, Mahmud A, Bass B, Brundage M. Prognostic significance of lymphovascular invasion in radical prostatectomy specimens. BJU Int. 2012;110:1507–14.
38. Huang Y, Huang H, Pan XW, Xu DF, Cui XG, Chen J, et al. The prognostic value of lymphovascular invasion in radical prostatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian J Androl. 2016;18(5):780–5.
39. Eminaga O, Hinkelammert R, Abbas M, Titze U, Eltze E, Bettendorf O, et al. High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) and topographical distribution in 1,374 prostatectomy specimens: Existence of HGPIN near prostate cancer. Prostate. 2013;73(10):1115–22.
40. Whittemore DE, Hick EJ, Carter MR, Moul JW, Miranda-Sousa AJ, Sexton WJ. Significance of tertiary Gleason pattern 5 in Gleason score 7 radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol. 2008;179(2):516–22.
41. Özsoy M, D’Andrea D, Moschini M, Foerster B, Abufaraj M, Mathieu R, et al. Tertiary Gleason pattern in radical prostatectomy specimens is associated with worse outcomes than the next higher Gleason score group in localized prostate cancer. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig. 2018;36(4):158.e1-158.e6.
42. Epstein JI. Prognostic significance of tumor volume in radical prostatectomy and needle biopsy specimens. J Urol. 2011;186(3):790–7.
43. Knoedler JJ, Karnes RJ, Thompson RH, Rangel LJ, Bergstralh EJ, Boorjian SA. The association of tumor volume with mortality following radical prostatectomy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2014;17(2):144–8.
44. Hudson J, Cao D, Vollmer R, Kibel AS, Grewal S, Humphrey PA. Foamy gland adenocarcinoma of the prostate: Incidence, Gleason grade, and early clinical outcome. Hum Pathol. 2012;43(7):975–9.
45. Lughezzani G, Gallina A, Larcher A, Briganti A, Capitanio U, Suardi N, et al. Radical prostatectomy represents an effective treatment in patients with specimen-confined high pathological Gleason score prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2013;111(5):723–30.
46. Garisto JD, Klotz L. Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: How to Do It Right. Oncology (Williston Park). 2017;31(5):333–40, 345.
47. Choy B, Pearce SM, Anderson BB, Shalhav AL, Zagaja G, Eggener SE, et al. Prognostic significance of percentage and architectural types of contemporary gleason pattern 4 prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40(10):1400–6.
48. Epstein JI, Amin MB, Fine SW, Algaba F, Aron M, Baydar DE, et al. The 2019 Genitourinary Pathology Society (GUPS) White Paper on Contemporary Grading of Prostate Cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2020;
49. Kweldam CF, Kümmerlin IP, Nieboer D, Steyerberg EW, Bangma CH, Incrocci L, 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. Mod Pathol. 2017;30:1126–32.
Funding: None
Acknowledgements: This study has been presented as a poster in the 2020 ESP&IAP Glasgow Congress held virtually.