Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK, et al. Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol. 1989;142:71–4.
Valerio M, Donaldson I, Emberton M, et al. Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2015;68(1):8–19. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.026.
Garcia JJ, Al-Ahmedie HA, Gopalan A, et al. Do prostatic transition zone tumors have a distinct morphology? Am J Surg Pathol. 2008;32:1709–14.
Al-Ahmedie HA, Tickoo SK, Olgac S, et al. Anterior predominant prostatic tumors: zone of origin and pathologic outcomes at radical prostatectomy. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008;32:229–35.
Schweizer MT, Cheng HH, Tretiakova MS, et al. Mismatch repair deficiency may be common in ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Oncotarget. 2016;7(50):82504–10.
Gleason DF. Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother Rep. 1966;50(3):125–8.
Mellinger GT, Gleason D, Bailar J III. The histology and prognosis of prostate cancer. J Urol. 1967;97:331–7.
Gleason DF, Mellinger GT. Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol. 1974;11:58–64.
Mellinger GT. Prognosis of prostatic carcinoma. Recent Results Cancer Res. 1977;60:61–72.
Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, et al. ISUP grading committee. The 2005 international society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:1228–42.
Epstein JI, Egavad L, Amin MB, et al. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma. Definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40(2):244–52.
Kweldam CF, Wildhagen MF, Steyerberg EW, et al. Cribriform growth is highly predictive for postoperative metastasis and disease-specific death in Gleason score 7 prostate cancer. Mod Pathol. 2015;28:457–64.
Dong F, Yang P, Wang C, et al. Architectural heterogeneity and cribriform pattern predict adverse clinical outcome for Gleason grade 4 prostatic adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2013 Dec;37(12):1855–61.
Zhou M, Shah RB. Recent advances in prostate cancer pathology: Gleason grading and beyond. Pathol Int. 2016;66:260–72.
McKenney JK, Simko J, Bonham M, 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. J Urol. 2011 Aug;186(2):465–9.
Kweldam CF, Nieboer D, Algaba F, et al. Gleason grade 4 prostate adenocarcinoma patterns: an interobserver agreement study among genitourinary pathologists. Histopathology. 2016 Sep;69(3):441–9.
McKenney JK, Wei W, Hawley S, et al. 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.
Arias-Stella III, Shah AB, Montoya-Cerrillo D, et al. Prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason score correlation in heterogeneous tumors. Proposal for a composite Gleason score. Am J Surg Pathol. 2015;39(9):1213–8.
Osunkaya AO, Nielsen ME, Epstein JI. Prognosis of mucinous adenocarcinoma of the prostate treated by radical prostatectomy: a study of 47 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008;32(3):468–72.
Kovi J, Jackson MA, Heshmat MY. Ductal spread in prostatic carcinoma. Cancer. 1985;56(7):1566–73.
McNeal JE, Yemoto CE. Spread of adenocarcinoma within prostatic ducts and acini. Morphologic and clinical correlations. Am J Surg Pathol. 1996;20(7):802–14.
Guo CC, Epstein JI. Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: histologic features and clinical significance. Mod Pathol. 2006;19(12):1528–35.
Kimura K, Tsuzuki T, Kato M, et al. Prognostic value of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate in radical prostatectomy specimens. Prostate. 2014;74(6):680–7.
Kato M, Kimura K, Hirakawa A, et al. The presence of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate in needle biopsy is a significant prognostic factor for prostate cancer patients with distant metastasis at initial presentation. Mod Pathol. 2016;29(2):166–73.
Mosse CA, Magi-Galluzzi C, Tsuzuki T, et al. The prognostic significance of tertiary Gleason pattern 5 in radical prostatectomy specimens. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004;28(3):394–8.
Chan TY, Partin AW, Walsh PC, et al. Prognostic significance of Gleason score 3+4 versus Gleason score 4+3 tumor at radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2000;56:823–7.
Wright JL, Salinas CA, Lin DW, et al. Prostate cancer specific mortality and Gleason 7 disease differences in prostate cancer outcomes between cases with Gleason 4+3 and Gleason 3+4 tumors in a population based cohort. J Urol. 2009;182:2702–7.
Zumsteg ZS, Spratt DE, Pei I, et al. A new risk classification system for therapeutic decision making with intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients undergoing dose-escalated external-beam radiation therapy. Eur Urol. 2013;64(6):895–902. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.033.
Moch H, Humphrey PA, Ulbright TM, Reuter V. WHO classification of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2016.
Ji E, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg D, et al. A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason score. Eur Urol. 2016;69(3):428–35.
Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Yemoto CM, et al. Biological determinants of cancer progression in men with prostate cancer. JAMA. 1999;281:1395–400.
Humphrey PA, Vollmer RT. Intraglandular tumor extent and prognosis in prostatic carcinoma: application of a grid method to prostatectomy specimens. Hum Pathol. 1990;21:799–804.
Epstein JI. Prognostic significance of tumor volume in radical prostatectomy and needle biopsy specimens. J Urol. 2011;186:790–7.
van der Kwast TH, Amin MB, Billis A, et al. International Society of Urologic Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 2: T2 substaging and prostate cancer volume. Mod Pathol. 2011;24:16–25.
Karram S, Trock BJ, Netto GJ, Epstein JI. Should intervening benign tissue be included in the measurement of discontinuous foci of cancer on prostate needle biopsy? Correlation with radical prostatectomy findings. Am J Surg Pathol. 2011;35:1351–5.
Epstein JI. Prognostic significance of tumor volume in radical prostatectomy and needle biopsy specimens. J Urol. 2011;186:790–7.
Quintal MM, Meirelles LR, Freitas LL, et al. Various morphometric measurements of cancer extent on needle prostate biopsies: which is predictive of pathologic stage and biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy? Int Urol Nephrol. 2011;43(3):697–705. doi:10.1007/s11255-011-9901-5.
Magi-Galuzzi C, et al. International Society of Urologic Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 3: extraprostatic extension, lymphovascular invasion and locally advanced disease. Mod Pathol. 2011;24:36–8.
Berney DM, et al. International Society of Urologic Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 4: seminal vesicles and lymph nodes. Mod Pathol. 2011;24:39–47.
Soh S, Arakawa A, Suyama K, et al. The prognosis of patients with seminal vesicle involvement depends upon the level of extraprostatic extension. J Urol. 1998;296A:159.
Tan PH, Cheng L, Srigley JR, et al. International Society of Urologic Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 5: surgical margins. Mod Pathol. 2011;24:48–57.
Alkhateeb S, Alibhai S, Fleshner N, et al. Impact of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy differs by disease risk group. J Urol. 2010;183:145–50.
Wright JL, Dalkin BL, True LD, et al. Positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy predict prostate cancer specific mortality. J Urol. 2010;183:2213–8.
Chalfin HJ, et al. Impact of surgical margin status on prostate-cancer-specific mortality. BJU Int. 2012;110:1684–9.
Sooriakumaran P, Dev HS, Skarecky D, Ahlering T. The importance of surgical margins in prostate cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2016;113:310–5.
Aydin H, Tsuzuki T, Hernandez D, et al. Positive proximal (bladder neck) margin at radical prostatectomy confers greater risk of biochemical progression. Urology. 2004;64:551–5.
Pettus JA, Weight CJ, Thompson CJ, et al. Biochemical failure in men following radical retropubic prostatectomy: impact of surgical margin status and location. J Urol. 2004;172:129–32.
Smith JA Jr, Chan RC, Chang SS, et al. A comparison of the incidence and location of positive surgical margins in robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and open retropubic radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2007;178:2385–9.
Izard JP, True LD, May P, et al. Prostate cancer that is within 0.1 mm of the surgical margin of a radical prostatectomy predicts greater likelihood of recurrence. Am J Surg Pathol. 2014;38(3):333–8.
Lu J, Wirth GJ, Wu S, et al. A close surgical margin after radical prostatectomy is an independent predictor of recurrence. J Urol. 2012;188(1):91–7.
Epstein JI, Sauvageot J. Do close but negative margins in radical prostatectomy specimens increase the risk of postoperative progression? J Urol. 1997;157:241–3.
Epstein JI, Partin AW, Sauvageot J, et al. Prediction of progression following radical prostatectomy. A multi-variate analysis of 721 men with long-term follow-up. Am J Surg Pathol. 1996;20:286–92.
Babaian RJ, Troncoso P, Bhadkamar VA, et al. Analysis of clinicopathologic factors predicting outcome after radical prostatectomy. Cancer. 2001;91:1414–22.
Murphy C, True L, Vakar-Lopez F, et al. A novel system for estimating residual disease and pathologic response to neoadjuvant treatment of prostate cancer. Prostate. 2016;76:1285–92.
The Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. The molecular taxonomy of primary prostate cancer. Cell. 2015;163(4):1011–25.
Robinson D, Van Allen EM, Wu YM, et al. Integrative clinical genomics of advanced prostate cancer. Cell. 2015;161(5):1215–28.
Nam RK, Sugar L, Yang W, et al. Expression of the TMPRSS2:ERG fusion gene predicts cancer recurrence after surgery for localized prostate cancer. Br J Cancer. 2007;97:1690–5.
Demichelis F, Fall K, Perner S, et al. TMPRSS2:ERG gene fusion associated with lethal prostate cancer in a watchful waiting cohort. Oncogene. 2007;26:4596–9.
Pettersson A, Graff RE, Bauer SR, et al. The TMPRSS2:ERG rearrangement, ERG expression, and prostate cancer outcomes: a cohort study and meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2012;21:1497–509.
Gopalan A, Leversha MA, Satagopan JM, et al. TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusion is not associated with outcome in patients treated by prostatectomy. Cancer Res. 2009;69:1400–6.
Rodrigues DN, Boysen G, Sumanasuriya S, et al. The molecular underpinnings of prostate cancer: impacts of management and pathology practice. J Pathol. 2017;241(2):173–82.
Hu R, Lu C, Mostaghel EA, et al. Distinct transcriptional programs mediated by the ligand-dependent full-length androgen receptor and its splice variants in castration-resistant prostate cancer. Cancer Res. 2012;72:3457–62.
Mostaghel EA, Marck BT, Plymate SR, et al. Resistance to CYP17A1 inhibition with abiraterone in castration-resistant prostate cancer: induction of steroidogenesis and androgen receptor splice variants. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17:5913–25.
Li Y, Chan SC, Brand LJ, et al. Androgen receptor splice variants mediate enzalutamide resistance in castration-resistant prostate cancer cell lines. Cancer Res. 2013;73:483–9.
Antonarakis ES, Lu C, Wang H, et al. AR-V7 and resistance to enzalutamide and abiraterone in prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:1028–38.
Welti J, Rodrigues DN, Sharp A, et al. Analytical validation and clinical qualification of a new immunohistochemical assay for androgen receptor splice variant-7 protein expression in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2016;70(4):599–608.
Scher HI, Lu D, Schreiber NA, Louw J, et al. Association of AR-V7 on circulating tumor cells as a treatment-specific biomarker with outcomes and survival in castration-resistant prostate cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2016 Nov 1;2(11):1441–9.
Lotan TL, Gurel B, Suttcliffe S, et al. PTEN protein loss by immunostaining: analytic validation and prognostic indicator for a high risk surgical cohort of prostate cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17:6563–73.
Ferraldeschi R, Nava Rodrigues D, Riisnaes R, et al. PTEN protein loss and clinical outcome from castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with abiraterone acetate. Eur Urol. 2015;67:795–802.
Ahearn TU, Pettersson A, Ebot EM, et al. A prospective investigation of PTEN loss and ERG expression in lethal prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016;108:dvj346.
Struewing JP, Hartge P, Wacholder S, et al. The risk of cancer associated with specific mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2 among Ashkenazi Jews. N Engl J Med. 1997;336:1401–8.
Gallagher DJ, Gaudet MM, Pal P, et al. Germline BRCA mutations denote clinicopathologic subset of prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16:2115–21.
Mateo J, Carreira S, Sandhu S, et al. DNA-repair defects and olaparib in metastatic prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:1697–708.
Pritchard CC, Morrissey C, Kumar A, et al. Complex MSH2 and MSH6 mutations in hypermutated microsatellite unstable advanced prostate cancer. Nat Commun. 2014;5:4988.
Graff JN, Alumkal JJ, Drake CG, et al. Early evidence of anti-PD-1 activity in enzalutamide-resistant prostate cancer. Oncotarget. 2016; doi:10.18632/oncotarget.10547.
Chung K, Wallace J, Kim SY. Structural and molecular interrogation of intact biological systems. Nature. 2013;497(7449):332–7. doi:10.1038/nature12107.
Santi PA. Light sheet fluorescent microscopy: a review. J Histochem Cytochem. 2011;59(2):129–38. doi:10.1369/0022155410394857.
van Royen ME, Verhoef EI, Kweldam CF, et al. Three-dimensional microscopic analysis of clinical prostate specimens. Histopathology. 2016;69:985–92.
Mateo J, Boysen G, Barbieri CE, et al. DNA repair in prostate cancer: biology and clinical implications. Eur Urol. 2016; doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.037. pii:S0302-2838(16)30504-8
Gordon RR, Wu M, Huang C-Y, et al. Chemotherapy-induced monoamine oxidase expression in prostate carcinoma functions as a cytoprotective resistance enzyme and associates with clinical outcomes. PLoS. 2014;9(9):e104271.
Sun Y, Campisi J, Higano C, et al. Treatment-induced damage to the tumor microenvironment promotes prostate cancer therapy resistance through WNT16B. Nat Med. 2012;18(9):1359–68.