Minardi, D, Mazzucchelli, R, Scarpelli, M, Massari, F, Ciccarese, C, Lopez-Beltran, A, Cheng, L, Montironi, R. Prostate Cancer Glands with Cribriform Architecture and with Glomeruloid Features Should Be Considered as Gleason Pattern 4 and Not Pattern 3. Future Oncol. 2016 Jun; 12(12): 1431–33.Google Scholar

McKenney, Jesse K. MD, Wei, Wei MS, Hawley, Sarah MS, Auman, Heidi PhD, Newcomb, Lisa F. PhD, Boyer, Hilary D. BSc, Fazli, Ladan MD, Simko, Jeff MD PhD, Hurtado-Coll, Antonio MD, Troyer, Dean A. MD PhD, Tretiakova, Maria S. MD PhD, Vakar-Lopez, Funda MD, Carroll, Peter R. MD MPH, Cooperberg, Matthew R. MD MPH, Gleave, Martin E. MD, Lance, Raymond S. MD, Lin, Dan W. MD, Nelson, Peter S. MD, Thompson, Ian M. MD, True, Lawrence D. MD, Feng, Ziding PhD, Brooks, James D. MD. Histologic Grading of Prostatic Adenocarcinoma Can Be Further Optimized: Analysis of the Relative Prognostic Strength of Individual Architectural Patterns in 1275 Patients from the Canary Retrospective Cohort. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016; 40(11): 1439–56.Google Scholar

Lopez-Beltran, A, Mikuz, G, Luque, RJ, Mazzucchelli, R, Montironi, R. Current Practice of Gleason Grading of Prostate Carcinoma. Virchows Arch. 2006 Feb; 448(2): 111–18.Google Scholar

Montironi, R, Santoni, M, Mazzucchelli, R, Burattini, L, Berardi, R, Galosi, AB, Cheng, L, Lopez-Beltran, A, Briganti, A, Montorsi, F, Scarpelli, M. Prostate Cancer: From Gleason Scoring to Prognostic Grade Grouping. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2016; 16(4): 433–40.Google Scholar

Montironi, R, Cheng, L, Scarpelli, M, Lopez-Beltran, A. Pathology and Genetics: Tumours of the Urinary System and Male Genital System: Clinical Implications of the 4th Edition of the WHO Classification and Beyond. Eur Urol. 2016 Jul; 70(1): 120–23.Google Scholar

Brimo, F, Montironi, R, Egevad, L, Erbersdobler, A, Lin, DW, Nelson, JB, Rubin, MA, van der Kwast, T, Amin, M, Epstein, JI. Contemporary Grading for Prostate Cancer: Implications for Patient Care. Eur Urol. 2013; 63: 892–901.Google Scholar

Partin, AW, Yoo, J, Carter, HB, Pearson, JD, Chan, DW, Epstein, JI, Walsh, PC. The Use of Prostate Specific Antigen, Clinical Stage and Gleason Score to Predict Pathological Stage in Men with Localized Prostate Cancer. J Urol. 1993; 150: 110–14.Google Scholar

Ohori, M, Kattan, MW, Koh, H, Maru, N, Slawin, KM, Shariat, S, Muramoto, M, Reuter, VE, Wheeler, TM, Scardino, PT. Predicting the Presence and Side of Extracapsular Extension: A Nomogram for Staging Prostate Cancer. J Urol. 2004; 171: 1844–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Cooperberg, MR, Pasta, DJ, Elkin, EP, Litwin, MS, Latini, DM, Du Chane, J, Carroll, PR. The University of California, San Francisco Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment Score: A Straightforward and Reliable Preoperative Predictor of Disease Recurrence after Radical Prostatectomy. J Urol. 2005; 173: 1938–42.Google Scholar

Egevad, L, Mazzucchelli, R, Montironi, R. Implications of the International Society of Urological Pathology Modified Gleason Grading System. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2012; 136: 426–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Montironi, R, Cheng, L, Lopez-Beltran, A, Scarpelli, M, Mazzucchelli, R, Mikuz, G, Kirkali, Z, Montorsi, F. Original Gleason System versus 2005 ISUP Modified Gleason System: The Importance of Indicating Which System Is Used in the Patient’s Pathology and Clinical Reports. Eur Urol. 2010; 58: 369–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Magi-Galluzzi, C, Montironi, R, Epstein, JI. Contemporary Gleason Grading and Novel Grade Groups in Clinical Practice. Curr Opin Urol. 2016 Sep; 26(5): 488–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Samaratunga, H, Delahunt, B, Yaxley, J, Srigley, JR, Egevad, L. From Gleason to International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Grading of Prostate Cancer. Scand J Urol. 2016 Oct; 50(5): 325–29.Google ScholarPubMed

Epstein, JI, Allsbrook, WC Jr, Amin, MB, Egevad, LL, Committee, IG. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005 Sep; 29(9): 1228–42. PubMed PMID: 16096414.Google Scholar

Epstein, JI, Egevad, L, Amin, MB, Delahunt, B, Srigley, JR, Humphrey, PA, et al. 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 Feb; 40(2): 244–52.Google Scholar

Pierorazio, PM, Walsh, PC, Partin, AW, Epstein, JI. Prognostic Gleason Grade Grouping: Data Based on the Modified Gleason Scoring System. BJU international. 2013 May; 111(5): 753–60. PubMed PMID: 23464824. Pubmed Central PMCID: 3978145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

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. European Urology. 2016 Mar; 69(3): 428–35. PubMed PMID: 26166626.Google Scholar

Loeb, S, Folkvaljon, Y, Robinson, D, Lissbrant, IF, Egevad, L, Stattin, P. Evaluation of the 2015 Gleason Grade Groups in a Nationwide Population-based Cohort. European Urology. 2015 Dec 17; (Epub ahead of print). PubMed PMID: 26707871.Google Scholar

Rubin, MA, Girelli, G, Demichelis, F. Genomic Correlates to the Newly Proposed Grading Prognostic Groups for Prostate Cancer. European Urology. 2016 Nov 9; 69: 557–60.Google Scholar

Epstein, JI. Gleason Score 2–4 Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate on Needle Biopsy: A Diagnosis that Should Not Be Made. Am J Surg Pathol. 2000 Apr; 24(4): 477–78.Google Scholar

Berg, KD, Thomsen, FB, Nerstrom, C, Roder, MA, Iversen, P, Toft, BG, et al. The Impact of the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology Consensus Guidelines on Gleason Grading – A Matched Pair Analysis. BJU international. 2016 Jan 28; PubMed PMID: 26823232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Billis, A, Guimaraes, MS, Freitas, LL, Meirelles, L, Magna, LA, Ferreira, U. The Impact of the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology Consensus Conference on Standard Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma in Needle Biopsies. The Journal of Urology. 2008 Aug; 180(2): 548–52. Discussion 52–53. PubMed PMID: 18550106.Google Scholar

Epstein, JI. An Update of the Gleason Grading System. The Journal of Urology. 2010 Feb; 183(2): 433–40. PubMed PMID: 20006878.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Amin, MB, Lin, DW, Gore, JL, Srigley, JR, Samaratunga, H, Egevad, L, et al. The Critical Role of the Pathologist in Determining Eligibility for Active Surveillance as a Management Option in Patients with Prostate Cancer: Consensus Statement with Recommendations Supported by the College of American Pathologists, International Society of Urological Pathology, Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology, the New Zealand Society of Pathologists, and the Prostate Cancer Foundation. Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine. 2014 Oct; 138(10): 1387–405.Google Scholar

Humphrey, PA. Prostate Pathology. Chicago, IL: ASCP Press; 2003.Google Scholar

D’Amico, AV, Whittington, R, Malkowicz, SB, Fondurulia, J, Chen, MH, Tomaszewski, JE, et al. The Combination of Preoperative Prostate Specific Antigen and Postoperative Pathological Findings to Predict Prostate Specific Antigen Outcome in Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer. The Journal of Urology. 1998 Dec; 160(6 Pt 1): 2096–101. PubMed PMID: 9817331.Google Scholar

Chan, TY, Partin, AW, Walsh, PC, Epstein, JI. Prognostic Significance of Gleason Score 3+4 versus Gleason Score 4+3 Tumor at Radical Prostatectomy. Urology. 2000 Nov 1; 56(5): 823–27. PubMed PMID: 11068310.Google Scholar

Makarov, DV, Sanderson, H, Partin, AW, Epstein, JI. Gleason Score 7 Prostate Cancer on Needle Biopsy: Is the Prognostic Difference in Gleason Scores 4 + 3 and 3 + 4 Independent of the Number of Involved Cores? The Journal of Urology. 2002 Jun; 167(6): 2440–42. PubMed PMID: 11992053.Google Scholar

Amin, A, Partin, A, Epstein, JI. Gleason Score 7 Prostate Cancer on Needle Biopsy: Relation of Primary Pattern 3 or 4 to Pathological Stage and Progression after Radical Prostatectomy. The Journal of Urology. 2011 Oct; 186(4): 1286–90. PubMed PMID: 21862072.Google Scholar

Matoso, A, Epstein, JI. Grading of Prostate Cancer: Past, Present, and Future. Current Urology Reports. 2016 Mar; 17(3): 25. PubMed PMID: 26874537.Google Scholar

Humphrey, PA, Amin, MB, Berney, DM, Billis, A, Cao, D, Cheng, L, et al. Acinar Adenocarcinoma: WHO Classification of Tumours of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs. Moch, H, Humphrey, PA, Ulbright, TM, Reuter, VE, editors. Lyon: IARC; 2016.Google Scholar

Zietman, A, Smith, J, Klein, E, Droller, M, Dasgupta, P, Catto, J. Consensus Guidelines for Reporting Prostate Cancer Gleason Grade. Urology. 2016 Mar 22; PubMed PMID: 27015942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Smith, JA Jr, Zietman, A, Klein, E, Droller, MJ, Dasgupta, P, Catto, J, et al. Stage Grouping. The Journal of Urology. 2016 Mar 17; PubMed PMID: 26995538.Google Scholar

Zietman, A, Smith, J, Klein, E, Droller, M, Dasgupta, P, Catto, J. Describing the Grade of Prostate Cancer: Consistent Use of Contemporary Terminology Is Now Required. European Urology. 2016 Mar 21; PubMed PMID: 27012550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ross, HM, Kryvenko, ON, Cowan, JE, Simko, JP, Wheeler, TM, Epstein, JI. Do Adenocarcinomas of the Prostate with Gleason Score (GS) </=6 Have the Potential to Metastasize to Lymph Nodes? Am J of Surg Pathol. 2012 Sep; 36(9): 1346–52. PubMed PMID: 22531173. Pubmed Central PMCID: 3421030.Google Scholar

Sauter, G, Steurer, S, Clauditz, TS, Krech, T, Wittmer, C, Lutz, F, et al. Clinical Utility of Quantitative Gleason Grading in Prostate Biopsies and Prostatectomy Specimens. European Urology. 2016 Apr; 69(4): 592–98. PubMed PMID: 26542947.Google Scholar

Tsao, CK, Gray, KP, Nakabayashi, M, Evan, C, Kantoff, PW, Huang, J, et al. Patients with Biopsy Gleason 9 and 10 Prostate Cancer Have Significantly Worse Outcomes Compared to Patients with Gleason 8 Disease. The Journal of Urology. 2015 Jul; 194(1): 91–97. PubMed PMID: 25623747.Google Scholar

Berney, DM, Beltran, L, Fisher, G, North, BV, Greenberg, D, Moller, H, et al. Validation of a Contemporary Prostate Cancer Grading System Using Prostate Cancer Death as Outcome. Br Jnl Cancer. 2016 (in press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ploussard, G, Isbarn, H, Briganti, A, Sooriakumaran, P, Surcel, CI, Salomon, L, et al. Can We Expand Active Surveillance Criteria to Include Biopsy Gleason 3+4 Prostate Cancer? A Multi-institutional Study of 2,323 Patients. Urologic Oncology. 2015 Feb; 33(2): 71e1–9. PubMed PMID: 25131660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chen, RC, Rumble, RB, Jain, S. Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer (Cancer Care Ontario guideline): American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Endorsement Summary. Journal of Oncology Practice / American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2016 Mar;12(3): 267–9. PubMed PMID: 26883405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Montironi, R, Scarpelli, M, Mazzucchelli, R, Lopez-Beltran, A, Santoni, M, Briganti, A, Montorsi, F, Cheng, L. Does Prostate Acinar Adenocarcinoma with Gleason Score 3+3=6 Have the Potential to Metastasize? Diagn Pathol. 2014 Oct 18; 9: 190. doi: 10.1186/s13000-014–0190-z.Google Scholar

Siadat, F, Sykes, J, Zlotta, AR, Aldaoud, N, Egawa, S, Pushkar, D, Kuk, C, Bristow, RG, Montironi, R, van der Kwast, T. Not All Gleason Pattern 4 Prostate Cancers Are Created Equal: A Study of Latent Prostatic Carcinomas in a Cystoprostatectomy and Autopsy Series. Prostate. 2015 Sep; 75(12): 1277–84.Google Scholar

Epstein, JI, Egevad, L, Humphrey, PA, Montironi, R. Members of the ISUP Immunohistochemistry in Diagnostic Urologic Pathology Group. Best Practices Recommendations in the Application of Immunohistochemistry in the Prostate: Report from the International Society of Urologic Pathology Consensus Conference. Am J Surg Pathol. 2014 Aug; 38(8): e6–e19. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Amin, MB, Epstein, JI, Ulbright, TM, Humphrey, PA, Egevad, L, Montironi, R, Grignon, D, Trpkov, K, Lopez-Beltran, A, Zhou, M, Argani, P, Delahunt, B, Berney, DM, Srigley, JR, Tickoo, SK, Reuter, VE. Members of the ISUP Immunohistochemistry in Diagnostic Urologic Pathology Group. Best Practices Recommendations in the Application of Immunohistochemistry in Urologic Pathology: Report from the International Society of Urological Pathology Consensus Conference. Am J Surg Pathol. 2014 Aug; 38(8): 1017–22. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Montironi, R, Lopez-Beltran, A, Mazzucchelli, R, Scarpelli, M, Galosi, AB, Cheng, L. Contemporary Update on Pathology-related Issues on Routine Workup of Prostate Biopsy: Sectioning, Tumor Extent Measurement, Specimen Orientation, and Immunohistochemistry. Anal Quant Cytopathol Histpathol. 2014 Apr; 36(2): 61–70. Review.Google Scholar