Validation of a contemporary prostate cancer grading system using prostate cancer death as outcome

[1] Berney DM(2007)The case for modifying the Gleason grading system BJU Int 100 725-726

[2] Berney DM(2007)Low Gleason score prostatic adenocarcinomas are no longer viable entities Histopathology 50 683-690

[3] Berney DM(2013)The reasons behind variation in Gleason grading of prostatic biopsies: areas of agreement and misconception among 266 European pathologists Histopathology 64 405-411

[4] Algaba F(2007)Pitfalls in the diagnosis of prostatic cancer: retrospective review of 1791 cases with clinical outcome Histopathology 51 452-457

[5] Camparo P(1999)Overdiagnosis of prostatic adenocarcinoma Semin Urol Oncol 17 199-205

[6] Comperat E(2013)Architectural heterogeneity and cribriform pattern predict adverse clinical outcome for Gleason grade 4 prostatic adenocarcinoma Am J Surg Pathol 37 1855-1861

[7] Griffiths D(2000)Gleason score 2-4 adenocarcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: a diagnosis that should not be made Am J Surg Pathol 24 477-478

[8] Kristiansen G(2010)An update of the Gleason grading system J Urol 183 433-440

[9] Lopez-Beltran A(2005)The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma Am J Surg Pathol 29 1228-1242

[10] Montironi R(2016)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 40 244-252

[1] Berney DM(2007)The case for modifying the Gleason grading system BJU Int 100 725-726

[2] Berney DM(2007)Low Gleason score prostatic adenocarcinomas are no longer viable entities Histopathology 50 683-690

[3] Berney DM(2013)The reasons behind variation in Gleason grading of prostatic biopsies: areas of agreement and misconception among 266 European pathologists Histopathology 64 405-411

[4] Algaba F(2007)Pitfalls in the diagnosis of prostatic cancer: retrospective review of 1791 cases with clinical outcome Histopathology 51 452-457

[5] Camparo P(1999)Overdiagnosis of prostatic adenocarcinoma Semin Urol Oncol 17 199-205

[6] Comperat E(2013)Architectural heterogeneity and cribriform pattern predict adverse clinical outcome for Gleason grade 4 prostatic adenocarcinoma Am J Surg Pathol 37 1855-1861

[7] Griffiths D(2000)Gleason score 2-4 adenocarcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: a diagnosis that should not be made Am J Surg Pathol 24 477-478

[8] Kristiansen G(2010)An update of the Gleason grading system J Urol 183 433-440

[9] Lopez-Beltran A(2005)The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma Am J Surg Pathol 29 1228-1242

[10] Montironi R(2016)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 40 244-252