| 1. | PA Ganz, JM Barry, W Burke, etal: National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference: Role of Active Surveillance in the Management of Men With Localized Prostate Cancer Ann Intern Med 156: 591– 595,2012 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar |
| 2. | JC Nickel, M Speakman: Should we really consider Gleason 6 prostate cancer? BJU Int 109: 645,2012 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar |
| 3. | BA Chabner, M Smith: Call it cancer Oncologist 17: 149– 150,2012 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar |
| 4. | JI Epstein, WC Allsbrook Jr, MB Amin, etal: The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma Am J Surg Pathol 29: 1228– 1242,2005 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar |
| 5. | JI Epstein: Gleason score 2-4 adenocarcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: A diagnosis that should not be made Am J Surg Pathol 24: 477– 478,2000 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar |
| 6. | F Dong, C Wang, AB Farris, etal: Impact on the clinical outcome of prostate cancer by the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology modified Gleason grading system Am J Surg Pathol 36: 838– 843,2012 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar |
| 7. | PC Albertsen, JA Hanley, GH Barrows, etal: Prostate cancer and the Will Rogers phenomenon J Natl Cancer Inst 97: 1248– 1253,2005 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar |
| 8. | C Parker, D Muston, J Melia, etal: A model of the natural history of screen-detected prostate cancer, and the effect of radical treatment on overall survival Br J Cancer 94: 1361– 1368,2006 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar |
| 9. | P Stattin, E Holmberg, JE Johansson, etal: Outcomes in localized prostate cancer: National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden follow-up study J Natl Cancer Inst 102: 950– 958,2010 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar |
| 10. | WV Shappley 3rd, SA Kenfield, JL Kasperzyk, etal: Prospective study of determinants and outcomes of deferred treatment or watchful waiting among men with prostate cancer in a nationwide cohort J Clin Oncol 27: 4980– 4985,2009 Link, Google Scholar |
| 11. | SE Eggener, PT Scardino, PC Walsh, etal: Predicting 15-year prostate cancer specific mortality after radical prostatectomy J Urol 185: 869– 875,2011 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar |
| 12. | TJ Wilt, MK Brawer, MJ Barry, etal: The Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial: VA/NCI/AHRQ Cooperative Studies Program #407 (PIVOT)—Design and baseline results of a randomized controlled trial comparing radical prostatectomy to watchful waiting for men with clinically localized prostate cancer Contemp Clin Trials 30: 81– 87,2009 Medline, Google Scholar |
| 1. | JL Mohler: The 2010 NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology on prostate cancer J Natl Compr Canc Netw 8: 145,2010 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar |
| 14. | MR Cooperberg, JM Broering, PR Carroll: Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer J Clin Oncol 28: 1117– 1123,2010 Link, Google Scholar |
| 15. | BL Jacobs, Y Zhang, TA Skolarus, etal: Growth of high-cost intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer raises concerns about overuse Health Aff (Millwood) 31: 750– 759,2012 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar |
| 16. | AS Hamilton, PC Albertsen, TK Johnson, etal: Trends in the treatment of localized prostate cancer using supplemented cancer registry data BJU Int 107: 576– 584,2011 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar |
| 17. | MR Cooperberg, JM Broering, PW Kantoff, etal: Contemporary trends in low risk prostate cancer: Risk assessment and treatment J Urol 178: S14– S19,2007 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar |
| 18. | AC Raldow, CJ Presley, JB Yu, etal: The relationship between clinical benefit and receipt of curative therapy for prostate cancer Arch Intern Med 172: 362– 363,2012 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar |
| 19. | GJ Netto, L Cheng: Emerging critical role of molecular testing in diagnostic genitourinary pathology Arch Pathol Lab Med 136: 372– 390,2012 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar |
| 20. | JI Epstein, Z Feng, BJ Trock, etal: Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: Incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades Eur Urol 61: 1019– 1024,2012 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar |
| 21. | V Iremashvili, L Pelaez, M Manoharan, etal: Pathologic prostate cancer characteristics in patients eligible for active surveillance: A head-to-head comparison of contemporary protocols Eur Urol 62: 462– 468,2012 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar |
| 22. | M Bul, X Zhu, A Rannikko, etal: Radical prostatectomy for low-risk prostate cancer following initial active surveillance: Results from a prospective observational study Eur Urol 62: 195– 200,2012 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar |
| 23. | A Bill-Axelson, L Holmberg, M Ruutu, etal: Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer N Engl J Med 364: 1708– 1717,2011 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar |
| 24. | TB Sheridan, HB Carter, W Wang, etal: Change in prostate cancer grade over time in men followed expectantly for stage T1c disease J Urol 179: 901– 904,2008 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar |
| 25. | IB Dunn, D Kirk: Legal pitfalls in the diagnosis of prostate cancer BJU Int 86: 304– 307,2000 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar |
| 26. | H Miyamoto, DJ Hernandez, JI Epstein: A pathological reassessment of organ-confined, Gleason score 6 prostatic adenocarcinomas that progress after radical prostatectomy Hum Pathol 40: 1693– 1698,2009 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar |
| 27. | MJ Burdick, CA Reddy, J Ulchaker, etal: Comparison of biochemical relapse-free survival between primary Gleason score 3 and primary Gleason score 4 for biopsy Gleason score 7 prostate cancer Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 73: 1439– 1445,2009 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar |
| 28. | DE Kang, NJ Fitzsimons, JC Presti Jr, etal: Risk stratification of men with Gleason score 7 to 10 tumors by primary and secondary Gleason score: Results from the SEARCH database Urology 70: 277– 282,2007 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar |
| 29. | DV Makarov, H Sanderson, AW Partin, etal: 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? J Urol 167: 2440– 2442,2002 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar |
| 30. | A Sabolch, FY Feng, S Daignault-Newton, etal: Gleason pattern 5 is the greatest risk factor for clinical failure and death from prostate cancer after dose-escalated radiation therapy and hormonal ablation Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 81: e351– e360,2011 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar |
Article Tools
