Background Prior studies assessing the correlation of Gleason score (GS) at needle biopsy and corresponding radical prostatectomy (RP) predated the use of the modified Gleason scoring system and did not factor in tertiary grade patterns. Objective To assess the relation of biopsy and RP grade in the largest study to date. Design, setting, and participants A total of 7643 totally embedded RP and corresponding needle biopsies (2004–2010) were analyzed according to the updated Gleason system. Interventions All patients underwent prostate biopsy prior to RP. Measurements The relation of upgrading or downgrading to patient and cancer characteristics was compared using the chi-square test, Student t test, and multivariable logistic regression. Results and limitations A total of 36.3% of cases were upgraded from a needle biopsy GS 5–6 to a higher grade at RP (11.2% with GS 6 plus tertiary). Half of the cases had matching GS 3 + 4 = 7 at biopsy and RP with an approximately equal number of cases downgraded and upgraded at RP. With biopsy GS 4 + 3 = 7, RP GS was almost equally 3 + 4 = 7 and 4 + 3 = 7. Biopsy GS 8 led to an almost equal distribution between RP GS 4 + 3 = 7, 8, and 9–10. A total of 58% of the cases had matching GS 9–10 at biopsy and RP. In multivariable analysis, increasing age (p < 0.0001), increasing serum prostate-specific antigen level (p < 0.0001), decreasing RP weight (p < 0.0001), and increasing maximum percentage cancer/core (p < 0.0001) predicted the upgrade from biopsy GS 5–6 to higher at RP. Despite factoring in multiple variables including the number of positive cores and the maximum percentage of cancer per core, the concordance indexes were not sufficiently high to justify the use of nomograms for predicting upgrading and downgrading for the individual patient. Conclusions Almost 20% of RP cases have tertiary patterns. A needle biopsy can sample a tertiary higher Gleason pattern in the RP, which is then not recorded in the standard GS reporting, resulting in an apparent overgrading on the needle biopsy.

No abstract

Objective • To investigate pathological and short-term outcomes since the most recent Gleason system modifications by the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) in an attempt to divide the current Gleason grading system into prognostically accurate Gleason grade groups. Patients and Methods • We queried the Johns Hopkins Radical Prostatectomy Database (1982–2011), approved by the institutional review board, for men undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) without a tertiary pattern since 2004 and identified 7869 men. • Multivariable models were created using preoperative and postoperative variables; prognostic grade group (Gleason grade ≤6; 3 + 4; 4 + 3; 8; 9–10) was among the strongest predictors of biochemical recurrence-free (BFS) survival. Results • Significant differences were noted among the Gleason grade groups at biopsy; differences were noted in the race, PSA level, clinical stage, number of positive cores at biopsy and the maximum percentage of positive cores among the Gleason grade groups at RP. • With a median (range) follow-up of 2 (1–7) years, 5-year BFS rates for men with Gleason grade ≤6, 3 + 4, 4 + 3, 8 and 9–10 tumours at biopsy were 94.6, 82.7, 65.1, 63.1 and 34.5%, respectively (P < 0.001 for trend); and 96.6, 88.1, 69.7, 63.7 and 34.5%, respectively (P < 0.001), based on RP pathology. Conclusions • The 2005 ISUP modifications to the Gleason grading system for prostate carcinoma accurately categorize patients by pathological findings and short-term biochemical outcomes but, while retaining the essence of the Gleason system, there is a need for a change in its reporting to more closely reflect tumour behaviour. • We propose reporting Gleason grades, including prognostic grade groups which accurately reflect prognosis as follows: Gleason score ≤6 (prognostic grade group I); Gleason score 3+4=7 (prognostic grade group II); Gleason score 4+3=7 (prognostic grade group III); Gleason score 4+4=8 (prognostic grade group (IV); and Gleason score 9–10 (prognostic grade group (V).

Highlights d Integrated proteogenomic characterization in 103 ccRCC cases d Delineation of chromosomal translocation events leading to chromosome 3p loss d Tumor-specific proteomic/phosphoproteomic alterations unrevealed by mRNA analysis d Immune-based subtypes of ccRCC defined by mRNA, proteome, and phosphoproteome

Purpose-Several options exist for management of clinically localized renal masses suspicious for cancer, including active surveillance, thermal ablation and radical or partial nephrectomy. We summarize evidence on effectiveness and comparative effectiveness of these treatment approaches for patients with a renal mass suspicious for localized renal cell carcinoma. Materials and Methods-We searched MEDLINE®, Embase® and the Cochrane CentralRegister of Controlled Trials from January 1, 1997 through May 1, 2015. Paired investigators independently screened articles to identify controlled studies of management options or cohort studies of active surveillance, abstracted data sequentially and assessed risk of bias independently. Strength of evidence was graded by comparisons.Results-The search identified 107 studies (majority T1, no active surveillance or thermal ablation stratified outcomes of T2 tumors). Cancer specific survival was excellent among all management strategies (median 5-year survival 95%). Local recurrence-free survival was inferior for thermal ablation with 1 treatment but reached equivalence to other modalities after multiple treatments. Overall survival rates were similar among management strategies and varied with age and comorbidity. End-stage renal disease rates were low for all strategies (0.4% to 2.8%). Radical nephrectomy was associated with the largest decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate and highest incidence of chronic kidney disease. Thermal ablation offered the most favorable perioperative outcomes. Partial nephrectomy showed the highest rates of urological complications but overall rates of minor/major complications were similar among interventions. Strength of evidence was moderate, low and insufficient for 11, 22 and 30 domains, respectively. * Correspondence: 600 N. Wolfe St., Park Building, Room 223, Baltimore, Maryland 21287 (telephone: 618-534-4942; FAX: 410-502-7711; hitenpatel@jhmi.edu). No direct or indirect commercial incentive associated with publishing this article.The corresponding author certifies that, when applicable, a statement(s) has been included in the manuscript documenting institutional review board, ethics committee or ethical review board study approval; principles of Helsinki Declaration were followed in lieu of formal ethics committee approval; institutional animal care and use committee approval; all human subjects provided written informed consent with guarantees of confidentiality; IRB approved protocol number; animal approved project number.References 51 through 88 can be obtained at http://jurology.com/. HHS Public Access METHODS Data Sources and SearchesWe report results from a broader systematic review. Data Synthesis and AnalysisAll studies were summarized qualitatively. LRFS was defined as the absence of any persistent or recurrent disease in the treated region of the kidney or associated renal fossa after a single, curative intent initial treatment. This definition included persistent enhancement of any treated mass, a visually e...

No abstract

In the originally published version of this article, Daniel Geiszler's last name was misspelled. This error has now been corrected in the article online.

Purpose: Testis cancer is the most common solid malignancy in young males. The purpose of this guideline is to provide a useful reference on the effective evidence-based treatment of early stage testicular cancer. Methods: The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by a methodology team at the Johns Hopkins University Evidence-based Practice Center. The methodology team searched using PubMedÒ, EmbaseÒ, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from January 1980 through August 2018. The evidence review team also reviewed relevant systematic reviews and references provided by the panel to identify articles that may have been missed by the database searches. Results: When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low). Such evidence-based statements are provided as Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. In instances of insufficient evidence, additional guidance is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions. Conclusions: This guideline attempts to improve a clinician's ability to evaluate and treat patients with testicular cancer, but higher quality evidence in future trials will be essential to improve level of care for these patients.