1. Edwards BK, Brown ML, Wingo PA, Howe HL, Ward E, Ries LA, Schrag D, Jamison PM, Jemal A, Wu XC, Friedman C, Harlan L, Warren J, Anderson RN, Pickle LW. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2002, featuring population-based trends in cancer treatment. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005. 97:1407–1427.
2. Jung KW, Park S, Kong HJ, Won YJ, Boo YK, Shin HR, Park EC, Lee JS. Cancer statistics in Korea: incidence, mortality and survival in 2006-2007. J Korean Med Sci. 2010. 25:1113–1121.
3. Gleason DF, Mellinger GT. Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol. 1974. 111:58–64.
4. Lerner SE, Blute ML, Bergstralh EJ, Bostwick DG, Eickholt JT, Zincke H. Analysis of risk factors for progression in patients with pathologically confined prostate cancers after radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol. 1996. 156:137–143.
5. Epstein JI, Partin AW, Sauvageot J, Walsh PC. Prediction of progression following radical prostatectomy. A multivariate analysis of 721 men with long-term follow-up. Am J Surg Pathol. 1996. 20:286–292.
6. Smith EB, Frierson HF Jr, Mills SE, Boyd JC, Theodorescu D. Gleason scores of prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens over the past 10 years: is there evidence for systematic upgrading? Cancer. 2002. 94:2282–2287.
7. Moussa AS, Li J, Soriano M, Klein EA, Dong F, Jones JS. Prostate biopsy clinical and pathological variables that predict significant grading changes in patients with intermediate and high grade prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2009. 103:43–48.
8. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL. ISUP Grading Committee. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005. 29:1228–1242.
9. Köksal IT, Ozcan F, Kadioglu TC, Esen T, Kiliçaslan I, Tunç M. Discrepancy between Gleason scores of biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Eur Urol. 2000. 37:670–674.
10. Catalona WJ, Stein AJ, Fair WR. Grading errors in prostatic needle biopsies: relation to the accuracy of tumor grade in predicting pelvic lymph node metastases. J Urol. 1982. 127:919–922.
11. Müller HA, Ackermann R, Frohmüller HG. The value of perineal punch biopsy in estimating the histological grade of carcinoma of the prostate. Prostate. 1980. 1:303–309.
12. Aihara M, Wheeler TM, Ohori M, Scardino PT. Heterogeneity of prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology. 1994. 43:60–66.
13. Ruijter ET, van de Kaa CA, Schalken JA, Debruyne FM, Ruiter DJ. Histological grade heterogeneity in multifocal prostate cancer. Biological and clinical implications. J Pathol. 1996. 180:295–299.
14. Harnden P, Shelley MD, Coles B, Staffurth J, Mason MD. Should the Gleason grading system for prostate cancer be modified to account for high-grade tertiary components? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2007. 8:411–419.
15. Mosse CA, Magi-Galluzzi C, Tsuzuki T, Epstein JI. The prognostic significance of tertiary Gleason pattern 5 in radical prostatectomy specimens. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004. 28:394–398.
16. van Oort IM, Schout BM, Kiemeney LA, Hulsbergen CA, Witjes JA. Does the tertiary Gleason pattern influence the PSA progression-free interval after retropubic radical prostatectomy for organ confined prostate cancer? Eur Urol. 2005. 48:572–576.
17. Capitanio U, Karakiewicz PI, Valiquette L, Perrotte P, Jeldres C, Briganti A, Gallina A, Suardi N, Cestari A, Guazzoni G, Salonia A, Montorsi F. Biopsy core number represents one of foremost predictors of clinically significant Gleason sum upgrading in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Urology. 2009. 73:1087–1091.
18. Turley RS, Terris MK, Kane CJ, Aronson WJ, Presti JC Jr, Amling CL, Freedland SJ. SEARCH Database Study Group. The association between prostate size and Gleason score upgrading depends on the number of biopsy cores obtained: results from the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital Database. BJU Int. 2008. 102:1074–1079.
19. Allsbrook WC Jr, Mangold KA, Johnson MH, Lane RB, Lane CG, Epstein JI. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: general pathologist. Hum Pathol. 2001. 32:81–88.
20. McLean M, Srigley J, Banerjee D, Warde P, Hao Y. Interobserver variation in prostate cancer Gleason scoring: are there implications for the design of clinical trials and treatment strategies? Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 1997. 9:222–225.