About this Journal Submit a Manuscript Table of Contents
Advances in Urology
Volume 2013 (2013), Article ID 471234, 5 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/471234
Research Article

Differences in Upgrading of Prostate Cancer in Prostatectomies between Community and Academic Practices

1Department of Urology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Health Sciences Building, 1959 NE Pacific, BB-1115, P.O. Box 356510, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
2Department of Pathology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
3Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA 98109, USA

Received 11 July 2013; Accepted 5 September 2013

Academic Editor: William K. Oh

Copyright © 2013 Franklin Lee et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. M. S. Cohen, R. S. Hanley, T. Kurteva et al., “Comparing the Gleason prostate biopsy and Gleason prostatectomy grading system: the Lahey Clinic Medical Center experience and an international meta-analysis,” European Urology, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 371–381, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. W. Kassouf, H. Nakanishi, A. Ochiai, K. N. Babaian, P. Troncoso, and R. J. Babaian, “Effect of prostate volume on tumor grade in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy in the era of extended prostatic biopsies,” Journal of Urology, vol. 178, no. 1, pp. 111–114, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. R. S. Turley, R. J. Hamilton, M. K. Terris et al., “Small transrectal ultrasound volume predicts clinically significant Gleason score upgrading after radical prostatectomy: results from the SEARCH database,” Journal of Urology, vol. 179, no. 2, pp. 523–527, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. D. Tilki, B. Schlenker, M. John et al., “Clinical and pathologic predictors of Gleason sum upgrading in patients after radical prostatectomy: results from a single institution series,” Urologic Oncology, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 508–514, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. F. Dong, J. S. Jones, A. J. Stephenson, C. Magi-Galluzzi, A. M. Reuther, and E. A. Klein, “Prostate cancer volume at biopsy predicts clinically significant upgrading,” Journal of Urology, vol. 179, no. 3, pp. 896–900, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. D. G. Bostwick, “Grading prostate cancer,” American Journal of Clinical Pathology, vol. 102, no. 4, pp. S38–S56, 1994. View at Scopus
  7. C. Di Loreto, B. Fitzpatrick, S. Underhill et al., “Correlation between visual clues, objective architectural features, and interobserver agreement in prostate cancer,” American Journal of Clinical Pathology, vol. 96, no. 1, pp. 70–75, 1991. View at Scopus
  8. J. K. McKenney, J. Simko, M. Bonham et al., “The potential impact of reproducibility of Gleason grading in men with early stage prostate cancer managed by active surveillance: a multi-institutional study,” Journal of Urology, vol. 186, no. 2, pp. 465–469, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. G. D. Carlson, C. B. Calvanese, H. Kahane, and J. I. Epstein, “Accuracy of biopsy Gleason scores uropathology laboratory: use of protocol to minimize observer,” Urology, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 525–529, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. C. R. King, J. E. McNeal, H. Gill, and J. C. Presti Jr., “Extended prostate biopsy scheme improves reliability of Gleason grading: implications for radiotherapy patients,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 386–391, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. R. T. Divrik, A. Eroglu, A. Sahin, F. Zorlu, and H. Ozen, “Increasing the number of biopsies increases the concordance of Gleason scores of needle biopsies and prostatectomy specimens,” Urologic Oncology, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 376–382, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. I. F. San Francisco, W. C. DeWolf, S. Rosen, M. Upton, and A. F. Olumi, “Extended prostate needle biopsy improves concordance of Gleason grading between prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy,” Journal of Urology, vol. 169, no. 1, pp. 136–140, 2003. View at Scopus
  13. H. Miyake, T. Kurahashi, A. Takenaka, I. Hara, and M. Fujisawa, “Improved accuracy for predicting the Gleason score of prostate cancer by increasing the number of transrectal biopsy cores,” Urologia Internationalis, vol. 79, no. 4, pp. 302–306, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. A. S. Moussa, A. Meshref, L. Schoenfield et al., “Importance of additional “extreme” anterior apical needle biopsies in the initial detection of prostate cancer,” Urology, vol. 75, no. 5, pp. 1034–1039, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. J. L. Wright and W. J. Ellis, “Improved prostate cancer detection with anterior apical prostate biopsies,” Urologic Oncology, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 492–495, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. M. Abdel-Khalek, K. Z. Sheir, M. El-Baz, and E.-H. Ibrahiem, “Is transition zone biopsy valuable in benign prostatic hyperplasia patients with serum prostate-specific antigen >10 ng/ml and prior negative peripheral zone biopsy?” Scandinavian Journal of Urology and Nephrology, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 49–55, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. O. N. Gofrit, K. C. Zorn, J. B. Taxy et al., “Predicting the risk of patients with biopsy Gleason score 6 to harbor a higher grade cancer,” Journal of Urology, vol. 178, no. 5, pp. 1925–1928, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. C. K. Poulos, J. K. Daggy, and L. Cheng, “Prostate needle biopsies: multiple variables are predictive of final tumor volume in radical prostatectomy specimens,” Cancer, vol. 101, no. 3, pp. 527–532, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. J. D. Davies, M. A. Aghazadeh, S. Phillips et al., “Prostate size as a predictor of Gleason score upgrading in patients with low risk prostate cancer,” Journal of Urology, vol. 186, no. 6, pp. 2221–2227, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. F. Dong, J. S. Jones, A. J. Stephenson, C. Magi-Galluzzi, A. M. Reuther, and E. A. Klein, “Prostate cancer volume at biopsy predicts clinically significant upgrading,” Journal of Urology, vol. 179, no. 3, pp. 896–900, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. T. J. Sebo, B. J. Bock, J. C. Cheville, C. Lohse, P. Wollan, and H. Zincke, “The percent of cores positive for cancer in prostate needle biopsy specimens is strongly predictive of tumor stage and volume at radical prostatectomy,” Journal of Urology, vol. 163, no. 1, pp. 174–178, 2000. View at Scopus
  22. K. Kuroiwa, T. Shiraishi, and S. Naito, “Gleason score correlation between biopsy and prostatectomy specimens and prediction of high-grade Gleason patterns: significance of central pathologic review,” Urology, vol. 77, no. 2, pp. 407–411, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. K. K. Hodge, J. E. McNeal, M. K. Terris, and T. A. Stamey, “Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate,” Journal of Urology, vol. 142, no. 1, pp. 71–75, 1989. View at Scopus
  24. C. B. Ching, A. S. Moussa, J. Li, B. R. Lane, C. Zippe, and J. S. Jones, “Does transrectal ultrasound probe configuration really matter? End fire versus side fire probe prostate cancer detection rates,” Journal of Urology, vol. 181, no. 5, pp. 2077–2083, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus