Epstein.Interpretación de biopsias de la próstata, 6ed

207

INFORME DEL CÁNCER 

BIBLIOGRAFÍA 1. Brimo F, Vollmer RT, Corcos J, et al. Prognostic value of various morphometric measurements of tumour extent in prostate needle core tissue. Histopathology . 2008;53(2):177–183. 2. Epstein JI. Prognostic significance of tumor volume in radical prostatectomy and needle biopsy spe- cimens. J Urol . 2011;186(3):790–797. 3. Fine SW, Epstein JI. A contemporary study correlating prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatec- tomy Gleason score. J Urol . 2008;179(4):1335–1338. 4. Badalament RA,Miller MC, Peller PA, et al. An algorithm for predicting nonorgan confined prostate cancer using the results obtained from sextant core biopsies with prostate specific antigen level. J Urol . 1996;156(4):1375–1380. 5. Huland H, Hammerer P, Henke RP, et al. Preoperative prediction of tumor heterogeneity and recu- rrence after radical prostatectomy for localized prostatic carcinoma with digital rectal, examination prostate specific antigen and the results of 6 systematic biopsies. J Urol . 1996;155(4):1344–1347. 6. Peller PA, Young DC, Marmaduke DP, et al. Sextant prostate biopsies. A histopathologic correlation with radical prostatectomy specimens. Cancer . 1995;75(2):530–538. 7. Ravery V, Boccon-Gibod LA, Dauge-Geffroy MC, et al. Systematic biopsies accurately predict extra- capsular extension of prostate cancer and persistent/recurrent detectable PSA after radical prostatec- tomy. Urology . 1994;44(3):371–376. 8. Ravery V, Chastang C, Toublanc M, et al. Percentage of cancer on biopsy cores accurately predicts extracapsular extension and biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy for T1-T2 prostate can- cer. Eur Urol . 2000;37(4):449–455. 9. Rubin MA, Bassily N, Sanda M, et al. Relationship and significance of greatest percentage of tumor and perineural invasion on needle biopsy in prostatic adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol . 2000; 24(2):183–189. 10. Tigrani VS, Bhargava V, Shinohara K, et al. Number of positive systematic sextant biopsies predicts surgical margin status at radical prostatectomy. Urology . 1999;54(4):689–693. 11. Ukimura O, Troncoso P, Ramirez EI, et al. Prostate cancer staging: correlation between ultrasound determined tumor contact length and pathologically confirmed extraprostatic extension. J Urol . 1998;159(4):1251–1259. 12. Wills ML, Sauvageot J, Partin AW, et al. Ability of sextant biopsies to predict radical prostatectomy stage. Urology . 1998;51(5):759–764. 13. Bismar TA, Lewis JS Jr, Vollmer RT, et al. Multiple measures of carcinoma extent versus perineural invasion in prostate needle biopsy tissue in prediction of pathologic stage in a screening population. Am J Surg Pathol . 2003;27(4):432–440. 14. Freedland SJ, Csathy GS, Dorey F, et al. Percent prostate needle biopsy tissue with cancer is more predictive of biochemical failure or adverse pathology after radical prostatectomy than prostate spe- cific antigen or Gleason score. J Urol . 2002;167(2, pt 1):516–520. 15. Gancarczyk KJ, Wu H, McLeod DG, et al. Using the percentage of biopsy cores positive for cancer, pretreatment PSA, and highest biopsy Gleason sum to predict pathologic stage after radical prosta- tectomy: the center for prostate disease research nomograms. Urology . 2003;61(3):589–595. 16. Grossklaus DJ, Coffey CS, Shappell SB, et al. Percent of cancer in the biopsy set predicts pathological findings after prostatectomy. J Urol . 2002;167(5):2032–2035, discussion 2036. 17. Guzzo TJ, Vira M, Wang Y, et al. Preoperative parameters, including percent positive biopsy, in pre- dicting seminal vesicle involvement in patients with prostate cancer. J Urol . 2006;175(2):518–521, discussion 521–522. 18. Koh H, Kattan MW, Scardino PT, et al. A nomogram to predict seminal vesicle invasion by the ex- tent and location of cancer in systematic biopsy results. J Urol . 2003;170(4, pt 1):1203–1208. 19. Lotan Y, Shariat SF, Khoddami SM, et al.The percent of biopsy cores positive for cancer is a predictor of advanced pathological stage and poor clinical outcomes in patients treated with radical prostatec- tomy. J Urol . 2004;171(6, pt 1):2209–2214. SAMPLE