确保Gleason分级与时俱进：该如何称呼Gleason 6级前列腺癌？
Future-proofing Gleason Grading: What to Call Gleason 6 Prostate Cancer?
作者信息
Loeb Stacy, Montorsi Francesco, Catto James W
机构信息
Department of Urology and Population Health, New York University, NY, USA.
Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
出版信息
Eur Urol. 2015 Jul;68(1):1-2. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.02.038. Epub 2015 Mar 11.
Abstract
At the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology meeting, changes to prostate cancer grading were discussed including new prognostic Gleason grade groups 1-5 representing Gleason scores of 3+3, 3+4, 4+3, 8, and 9-10, respectively.
摘要
在2014年国际泌尿病理学会会议上，讨论了前列腺癌分级的变化，包括新的预后Gleason分级组1-5，分别代表Gleason评分3+3、3+4、4+3、8和9-10。
相似文献
1
Future-proofing Gleason Grading: What to Call Gleason 6 Prostate Cancer?
Eur Urol. 2015 Jul;68(1):1-2. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.02.038. Epub 2015 Mar 11.
2
Prostate cancer: from Gleason scoring to prognostic grade grouping.
Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2016;16(4):433-40. doi: 10.1586/14737140.2016.1160780.
3
International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading of prostate cancer - An ISUP consensus on contemporary grading.
APMIS. 2016 Jun;124(6):433-5. doi: 10.1111/apm.12533.
4
From Gleason to International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading of prostate cancer.
Scand J Urol. 2016 Oct;50(5):325-9. doi: 10.1080/21681805.2016.1201858. Epub 2016 Jul 14.
5
The impact of the 2005 international society of urological pathology consensus conference on standard Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in needle biopsies.
J Urol. 2008 Aug;180(2):548-52; discussion 552-3. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.04.018. Epub 2008 Jun 11.
6
Implications of the International Society of Urological Pathology modified Gleason grading system.
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2012 Apr;136(4):426-34. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2011-0495-RA.
7
The prognostic significance of the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading system for prostate cancer.
Pathology. 2015 Oct;47(6):515-9. doi: 10.1097/PAT.0000000000000315.
8
Prostate cancer grading in 2018: limitations, implementations, cribriform morphology, and biological markers.
Int J Biol Markers. 2018 Nov;33(4):331-334. doi: 10.1177/1724600818781296. Epub 2018 Jun 27.
9
Contemporary Gleason grading and novel Grade Groups in clinical practice.
Curr Opin Urol. 2016 Sep;26(5):488-92. doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000320.
10
Evolution, controversies and the future of prostate cancer grading.
Pathol Int. 2019 Feb;69(2):55-66. doi: 10.1111/pin.12761. Epub 2019 Jan 29.
引用本文的文献
1
It's all in the name: Does nomenclature for indolent prostate cancer impact management and anxiety?
Cancer. 2021 Sep 15;127(18):3354-3360. doi: 10.1002/cncr.33621. Epub 2021 Jun 3.
2
Contemporary grading of prostate cancer: 2017 update for pathologists and clinicians.
Asian J Androl. 2017 Aug 4;21(1):19-23. doi: 10.4103/aja.aja_24_17.
3
Improving Clinical Risk Stratification at Diagnosis in Primary Prostate Cancer: A Prognostic Modelling Study.
PLoS Med. 2016 Aug 2;13(8):e1002063. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002063. eCollection 2016 Aug.
4
Perspectives of Prostate Cancer Patients on Gleason Scores and the New Grade Groups: Initial Qualitative Study.
Eur Urol. 2016 Dec;70(6):1083-1085. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.05.039. Epub 2016 Jun 7.
5
MicroRNAs as Biomarkers for Diagnosis, Prognosis and Theranostics in Prostate Cancer.
Int J Mol Sci. 2016 Mar 22;17(3):421. doi: 10.3390/ijms17030421.
6
Two-dimensional neovascular complexity is significantly higher in nontumor prostate tissue than in low-risk prostate cancer.
Korean J Urol. 2015 Jun;56(6):435-42. doi: 10.4111/kju.2015.56.6.435. Epub 2015 Jun 2.
本文引用的文献
1
Active surveillance for prostate cancer: the role of the pathologist.
Pathology. 2015 Jan;47(1):1-3. doi: 10.1097/PAT.0000000000000186.
2
Contemporary use of initial active surveillance among men in Michigan with low-risk prostate cancer.
Eur Urol. 2015 Jan;67(1):44-50. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.08.024. Epub 2014 Aug 24.
3
Addressing overdiagnosis and overtreatment in cancer: a prescription for change.
Lancet Oncol. 2014 May;15(6):e234-42. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70598-9.
4
When is prostate cancer really cancer?
Urol Clin North Am. 2014 May;41(2):339-46. doi: 10.1016/j.ucl.2014.01.006. Epub 2014 Feb 21.
5
Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy comparing prostate cancer detection by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy versus magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with subsequent MR-guided biopsy in men without previous prostate biopsies.
Eur Urol. 2014 Jul;66(1):22-9. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.03.002. Epub 2014 Mar 14.
6
Tracking the clonal origin of lethal prostate cancer.
J Clin Invest. 2013 Nov;123(11):4918-22. doi: 10.1172/JCI70354. Epub 2013 Oct 25.
7
Population based study of use and determinants of active surveillance and watchful waiting for low and intermediate risk prostate cancer.
J Urol. 2013 Nov;190(5):1742-9. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.05.054. Epub 2013 May 30.
8
Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system.
BJU Int. 2013 May;111(5):753-60. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11611.x. Epub 2013 Mar 6.
9
Gleason score 6 adenocarcinoma: should it be labeled as cancer?
J Clin Oncol. 2012 Dec 10;30(35):4294-6. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2012.44.0586. Epub 2012 Oct 1.
10
Risk of Gleason grade inaccuracies in prostate cancer patients eligible for active surveillance.
Urology. 2012 Sep;80(3):661-6. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2012.06.022.
Zotero 插件