[1] Lopez J I. Gleason and Fuhrman no longer make the grade. Histopathology. 2016,69(2):340-341.
[2] Danneman D, Drevin L, Delahunt B, Samaratunga H, Robinson D, Bratt O, et al. Accuracy of prostate biopsies for predicting Gleason score in radical prostatectomy specimens: nationwide trends 2000-2012. BJU Int. 2017,119(1):50-56.
[3] Cohen M S, Hanley R S, Kurteva T, Ruthazer R, Silverman M L, Sorcini A, et al. Comparing the Gleason prostate biopsy and Gleason prostatectomy grading system: the Lahey Clinic Medical Center experience and an international meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2008,54(2):371-381.
[4] Budaus L, Graefen M, Salomon G, Isbarn H, Lughezzani G, Sun M, et al. The novel nomogram of Gleason sum upgrade: possible application for the eligible criteria of low dose rate brachytherapy. Int J Urol. 2010,17(10):862-868.
[5] Epstein J I, Feng Z, Trock B J, Pierorazio P M. 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. 2012,61(5):1019-1024.
[6] Gofrit Ofer N, Zorn Kevin C, Taxy Jerome B, Lin Shang, Zagaja Gregory P, Steinberg Gary D, et al. Predicting the Risk of Patients With Biopsy Gleason Score 6 to Harbor a Higher Grade Cancer. Journal of Urology. 2007,178(5):1925-1928.
[7] Davies Judson D, Aghazadeh Monty A, Phillips Sharon, Salem Shady, Chang Sam S, Clark Peter E, et al. Prostate Size as a Predictor of Gleason Score Upgrading in Patients With Low Risk Prostate Cancer. Journal of Urolog. 2011,186(6):2221-2227.
[8] Kvale R, Moller B, Wahlqvist R, Fossa S D, Berner A, Busch C, et al. Concordance between Gleason scores of needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens: a population-based study. BJU Int. 2009: 103, 1647-1654.
[9] Moussa A S, Kattan M W, Berglund R, Yu C, Fareed K, Jones J S. A nomogram for predicting upgrading in patients with low- and intermediate-grade prostate cancer in the era of extended prostate sampling. BJU Int. 2010,105(3):352-358.
[10] Chun F K, Steuber T, Erbersdobler A, Currlin E, Walz J, Schlomm T, et al. Development and internal validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of prostate cancer Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology. Eur Urol. 2006,49(5):820-826.
[11] Kulkarni G S, Lockwood G, Evans A, Toi A, Trachtenberg J, Jewett M A, et al. Clinical predictors of Gleason score upgrading: implications for patients considering watchful waiting, active surveillance, or brachytherapy. Cancer. 2007,109(12):2432-2438.
[12] Wang J Y, Zhu Y, Wang C F, Zhang S L, Dai B, Ye D W. A nomogram to predict Gleason sum upgrading of clinically diagnosed localized prostate cancer among Chinese patients. Chin J Cancer. 2014,33(5):241-248.
[13] Truong M, Slezak J A, Lin C P, Iremashvili V, Sado M, Razmaria A A, et al. Development and multi-institutional validation of an upgrading risk tool for Gleason 6 prostate cancer. Cancer. 2013,119(22):3992-4002.
[14] Song W, Bang S H, Jeon H G, Jeong B C, Seo S I, Jeon S S, et al. Role of PI-RADS Version 2 for Prediction of Upgrading in Biopsy-Proven Prostate Cancer With Gleason Score 6. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2018,16(4):281-287.
[15] Capitanio U, Karakiewicz P I, Valiquette L, Perrotte P, Jeldres C, Briganti A, et al. Biopsy core number represents one of foremost predictors of clinically significant gleason sum upgrading in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Urology. 2009,73(5):1087-1091..
[16] He B, Chen R, Gao X, Ren S, Yang B, Hou J, et al. Nomograms for predicting Gleason upgrading in a contemporary Chinese cohort receiving radical prostatectomy after extended prostate biopsy: development and internal validation. Oncotarget. 2016,7(13):17275-17285.
[17] Thomsen F B, Brasso K, Klotz L H, Roder M A, Berg K D, Iversen P. Active surveillance for clinically localized prostate cancer--a systematic review. J Surg Oncol. 2014,109(8):830-835.
[18] Briganti A, Larcher A, Abdollah F, Capitanio U, Gallina A, Suardi N, et al. Updated nomogram predicting lymph node invasion in patients with prostate cancer undergoing extended pelvic lymph node dissection: the essential importance of percentage of positive cores. Eur Urol. 2012,61(3):480-487.
[19] D'Amico A V, Chen M H, Renshaw A A, Loffredo M, Kantoff P W. Androgen suppression and radiation vs radiation alone for prostate cancer: a randomized trial . JAMA. 2008,299(3):289-295.
[20] Varma M, Narahari K, Mason M, Oxley J D, Berney D M. Contemporary prostate biopsy reporting: insights from a survey of clinicians' use of pathology data. J Clin Pathol. 2018,71(10):874-878.
[21] Brimo F, Vollmer R T, Corcos J. Kotar K, Begin L R, Humphrey P A, et al. Prognostic value of various morphometric measurements of tumour extent in prostate needle core tissue. Histopathology. 2008,53(2):177-183.
[22] Narain V, Bianco FJ Jr, Grignon D J, Sakr W A, Pontes J E, Wood DP Jr. How accurately does prostate biopsy Gleason score predict pathologic findings and disease free survival? Prostate. 2001,49(3):185-190.
[23] Huo A S, Hossack T, Symons J L, PeBenito R, Delprado W J, Brenner P, et al. Accuracy of primary systematic template guided transperineal biopsy of the prostate for locating prostate cancer: a comparison with radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol. 2012,187(6):2044-2049.
[24] Le JD, Tan N, Shkolyar E, Lu D Y, Kwan L, Marks L S, et al. Multifocality and prostate cancer detection by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: correlation with whole-mount histopathology . Eur Urol. 2015,67(3):569-576.
[25] Park S Y, Jung D C, Oh Y T, Cho N H, Choi Y D, Rha K H, et al. Prostate Cancer: PI-RADS Version 2 Helps Preoperatively Predict Clinically Significant Cancers. Radiology. 2016,280(1):108-116.