Gleason sum upgrading (GSU) is common in patients with organ-confined prostate cancer. Studies in 2010 have identified GSU predictors and examined the role of GSU in patients with prostate cancer, but several clinical applications for GSU have been suggested—has its clinical importance in daily practice been inflated?
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
Dall'Era, M. A. et al. Surgical management after active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: pathological outcomes compared with men undergoing immediate treatment. BJU Int. doi:10.1111/j.1464–410.X.2010.09589.x.
Chun, F. K. 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. 49, 820–826 (2006).
Heidenreich, A. et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur. Urol. 59, 61–71 (2011).
Capitanio, U. et al. Biopsy core number represents one of foremost predictors of clinically significant gleason sum upgrading in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Urology 73, 1087–1091 (2009).
van den Bergh, R. C. et al. Outcomes of men with screen-detected prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance who were managed expectantly. Eur. Urol. 55, 1–8 (2009).
Colleselli, D. et al. Upgrading of Gleason score 6 prostate cancers on biopsy after prostatectomy in the low and intermediate tPSA range. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 13, 182–185 (2010).
Tilki, D. et al. Clinical and pathologic predictors of Gleason sum upgrading in patients after radical prostatectomy: Results from a single institution series. Urol. Oncol. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2009.07.003.
Moussa, A. S. et al. A nomogram for predicting upgrading in patients with low- and intermediate-grade prostate cancer in the era of extended prostate sampling. BJU Int. 105, 352–358 (2010).
Kulkarni, G. S. et al. Clinical predictors of Gleason score upgrading: implications for patients considering watchful waiting, active surveillance, or brachytherapy. Cancer 15, 2432–2438 (2007).
Suardi, N. et al. Currently used criteria for active surveillance in men with low-risk prostate cancer: an analysis of pathologic features. Cancer 113, 2068–2072 (2008).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Capitanio, U., Suardi, N. GSU: misclassification or biological progression?. Nat Rev Urol 8, 65–66 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2010.247
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2010.247
