[1]
Rawla P. Epidemiology of Prostate Cancer. World journal of oncology. 2019 Apr:10(2):63-89. doi: 10.14740/wjon1191. Epub 2019 Apr 20
[PubMed PMID: 31068988]
[2]
Lin SC, Yu-Lee LY, Lin SH. Osteoblastic Factors in Prostate Cancer Bone Metastasis. Current osteoporosis reports. 2018 Dec:16(6):642-647. doi: 10.1007/s11914-018-0480-6. Epub
[PubMed PMID: 30203251]
[3]
Mattiuzzi C, Lippi G. Current Cancer Epidemiology. Journal of epidemiology and global health. 2019 Dec:9(4):217-222. doi: 10.2991/jegh.k.191008.001. Epub
[PubMed PMID: 31854162]
[4]
Gleason DF. Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer chemotherapy reports. 1966 Mar:50(3):125-8
[PubMed PMID: 5948714]
[5]
Gordetsky J, Epstein J. Grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma: current state and prognostic implications. Diagnostic pathology. 2016 Mar 9:11():25. doi: 10.1186/s13000-016-0478-2. Epub 2016 Mar 9
[PubMed PMID: 26956509]
[6]
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. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11611.x. Epub 2013 Mar 6
[PubMed PMID: 23464824]
[7]
Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA, Grading Committee. 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. The American journal of surgical pathology. 2016 Feb:40(2):244-52. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000530. Epub
[PubMed PMID: 26492179]
Level 3 (low-level) evidence
[8]
Dere Y, Çelik ÖI, Çelik SY, Ekmekçi S, Evcim G, Pehlivan F, Ağalar A, Deliktaş H, Çulhacı N. A grading dilemma; Gleason scoring system: Are we sufficiently compatible? A multi center study. Indian journal of pathology & microbiology. 2020 Feb:63(Supplement):S25-S29. doi: 10.4103/IJPM.IJPM_288_18. Epub
[PubMed PMID: 32108622]
[9]
Steiner DF, Nagpal K, Sayres R, Foote DJ, Wedin BD, Pearce A, Cai CJ, Winter SR, Symonds M, Yatziv L, Kapishnikov A, Brown T, Flament-Auvigne I, Tan F, Stumpe MC, Jiang PP, Liu Y, Chen PC, Corrado GS, Terry M, Mermel CH. Evaluation of the Use of Combined Artificial Intelligence and Pathologist Assessment to Review and Grade Prostate Biopsies. JAMA network open. 2020 Nov 2:3(11):e2023267. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.23267. Epub 2020 Nov 2
[PubMed PMID: 33180129]
[10]
Bulten W, Kartasalo K, Chen PC, Ström P, Pinckaers H, Nagpal K, Cai Y, Steiner DF, van Boven H, Vink R, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C, van der Laak J, Amin MB, Evans AJ, van der Kwast T, Allan R, Humphrey PA, Grönberg H, Samaratunga H, Delahunt B, Tsuzuki T, Häkkinen T, Egevad L, Demkin M, Dane S, Tan F, Valkonen M, Corrado GS, Peng L, Mermel CH, Ruusuvuori P, Litjens G, Eklund M, PANDA challenge consortium. Artificial intelligence for diagnosis and Gleason grading of prostate cancer: the PANDA challenge. Nature medicine. 2022 Jan:28(1):154-163. doi: 10.1038/s41591-021-01620-2. Epub 2022 Jan 13
[PubMed PMID: 35027755]
[11]
Checcucci E, Rosati S, De Cillis S, Vagni M, Giordano N, Piana A, Granato S, Amparore D, De Luca S, Fiori C, Balestra G, Porpiglia F. Artificial intelligence for target prostate biopsy outcomes prediction the potential application of fuzzy logic. Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases. 2022 Feb:25(2):359-362. doi: 10.1038/s41391-021-00441-1. Epub 2021 Sep 3
[PubMed PMID: 34480083]
[12]
Seyrek N, Hollemans E, Andrinopoulou ER, Osanto S, Pelger RCM, van der Poel HG, Bekers E, Remmers S, Schoots IG, van Leenders GJLH. Alternative prostate cancer grading systems incorporating percent pattern 4/5 (IQ-Gleason) and cribriform architecture (cGrade) improve prediction of outcome after radical prostatectomy. Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology. 2022 Jun:480(6):1149-1157. doi: 10.1007/s00428-022-03301-y. Epub 2022 Feb 14
[PubMed PMID: 35157140]
[13]
Kweldam CF, van Leenders GJ, van der Kwast T. Grading of prostate cancer: a work in progress. Histopathology. 2019 Jan:74(1):146-160. doi: 10.1111/his.13767. Epub
[PubMed PMID: 30565302]
[14]
Haffner MC, Salles DC, Gao G, Epstein JI. Gleason pattern 4 with cribriform morphology on biopsy is associated with adverse clinicopathological findings in a prospective radical prostatectomy cohort. Human pathology. 2020 Apr:98():74-80. doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2020.02.004. Epub 2020 Feb 28
[PubMed PMID: 32119879]
[15]
Kurose H, Ueda K, Ogasawara N, Chikui K, Nakiri M, Nishihara K, Matsuo M, Suekane S, Kusano H, Akiba J, Yano H, Igawa T. Impact of Gleason score of the tumor at the positive surgical margin as a prognostic factor. Molecular and clinical oncology. 2022 Apr:16(4):82. doi: 10.3892/mco.2022.2515. Epub 2022 Feb 10
[PubMed PMID: 35251633]
[16]
Stephenson AJ, Scardino PT, Eastham JA, Bianco FJ Jr, Dotan ZA, DiBlasio CJ, Reuther A, Klein EA, Kattan MW. Postoperative nomogram predicting the 10-year probability of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2005 Oct 1:23(28):7005-12
[PubMed PMID: 16192588]
[17]
Zhao KH, Hernandez DJ, Han M, Humphreys EB, Mangold LA, Partin AW. External validation of University of California, San Francisco, Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score. Urology. 2008 Aug:72(2):396-400. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2007.11.165. Epub 2008 Apr 18
[PubMed PMID: 18372031]
Level 1 (high-level) evidence
[18]
Basourakos SP, Tzeng M, Lewicki PJ, Patel K, Al Hussein Al Awamlh B, Venkat S, Shoag JE, Gorin MA, Barbieri CE, Hu JC. Tissue-Based Biomarkers for the Risk Stratification of Men With Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer. Frontiers in oncology. 2021:11():676716. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.676716. Epub 2021 May 28
[PubMed PMID: 34123846]
[19]
Caputo A, D'Antonio A, Memoli D, Sabbatino F, Altieri V, Zeppa P. Ki67 in Gleason Pattern 3 as a Marker of the Presence of Higher-Grade Prostate Cancer. Applied immunohistochemistry & molecular morphology : AIMM. 2021 Feb 1:29(2):112-117. doi: 10.1097/PAI.0000000000000835. Epub
[PubMed PMID: 32107350]
[20]
Liakos N, Witt JH, Rachubinski P, Leyh-Bannurah SR. The Dilemma of Misclassification Rates in Senior Patients With Prostate Cancer, Who Were Treated With Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Implications for Patient Counseling and Diagnostics. Frontiers in surgery. 2022:9():838477. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.838477. Epub 2022 Feb 16
[PubMed PMID: 35252339]
[21]
Díaz de la Guardia-Bolívar E, Barrios-Rodríguez R, Zwir I, Jiménez-Moleón JJ, Del Val C. Identification of novel prostate cancer genes in patients stratified by Gleason classification: Role of antitumoral genes. International journal of cancer. 2022 Jul 15:151(2):255-264. doi: 10.1002/ijc.33988. Epub 2022 Mar 18
[PubMed PMID: 35234293]
[22]
Santo GD, Frasca M, Bertoli G, Castiglioni I, Cava C. Identification of key miRNAs in prostate cancer progression based on miRNA-mRNA network construction. Computational and structural biotechnology journal. 2022:20():864-873. doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2022.02.002. Epub 2022 Feb 7
[PubMed PMID: 35222845]
[23]
Yu A, Guo K, Qin Q, Xing C, Zu X. Clinicopathological and prognostic significance of osteopontin expression in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Bioscience reports. 2021 Aug 27:41(8):. doi: 10.1042/BSR20203531. Epub
[PubMed PMID: 33635319]
Level 2 (mid-level) evidence