Prognostic factors in prostate cancer

College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999

David G. Bostwick, David J. Grignon, M. Elizabeth H. Hammond, Mahul Amin, Michael Cohen, David Crawford, Mary Gospadarowicz, Richard S. Kaplan, Daniel S. Miller, Rodolfo Montironi, Thomas F. Pajak, Alan Pollack, John R. Srigley, John W. Yarbro, Joe Schramm

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

267 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background. - Under the auspices of the College of American Pathologists, a multidisciplinary group of clinicians, pathologists, and statisticians considered prognostic and predictive factors in prostate cancer and stratified them into categories reflecting the strength of published evidence and taking into account the expert opinions of the Prostate Working Group members. Materials and Methods. - Factors were ranked according to the previous College of American Pathologists categorical rankings: category I, factors proven to be of prognostic importance and useful in clinical patient management; category II, factors that have been extensively studied biologically and clinically but whose importance remains to be validated in statistically robust studies; and category III, all other factors not sufficiently studied to demonstrate their prognostic value. Factors in categories I and II were considered with respect to variations in methods of analysis, interpretation of findings, reporting of data, and statistical evaluation. For each factor, detailed recommendations for improvement were made. Recommendations were based on the following aims: (1) increasing uniformity and completeness of pathologic evaluation of tumor specimens, (2) enhancing the quality of data collected pertaining to existing prognostic factors, and (3) improving patient care. Results and Conclusions. - Factors ranked in category I included preoperative serum prostate-specific antigen level, TNM stage grouping, histologic grade as Gleason score, and surgical margin status. Category II factors included tumor volume, histologic type, and DNA ploidy. Factors in category III included perineural invasion, neuroendocrine differentiation, microvessel density, nuclear roundness, chromatin texture, other karyometric factors, proliferation markers, prostate-specific antigen derivatives, and other factors (oncogenes, tumor suppressor genes, apoptosis genes, etc).

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)995-1000
Number of pages6
JournalArchives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
Volume124
Issue number7
StatePublished - Aug 15 2000
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Prostatic Neoplasms
Prostate-Specific Antigen
Neoplasm Grading
Ploidies
Expert Testimony
Microvessels
Tumor Burden
Tumor Suppressor Genes
Oncogenes
Chromatin
Prostate
Patient Care
Research Design
Apoptosis
DNA
Serum
Genes
Pathologists
Neoplasms
Data Accuracy

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine
  • Medical Laboratory Technology

Cite this

Bostwick, D. G., Grignon, D. J., Hammond, M. E. H., Amin, M., Cohen, M., Crawford, D., ... Schramm, J. (2000). Prognostic factors in prostate cancer: College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999. Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, 124(7), 995-1000.

Prognostic factors in prostate cancer : College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999. / Bostwick, David G.; Grignon, David J.; Hammond, M. Elizabeth H.; Amin, Mahul; Cohen, Michael; Crawford, David; Gospadarowicz, Mary; Kaplan, Richard S.; Miller, Daniel S.; Montironi, Rodolfo; Pajak, Thomas F.; Pollack, Alan; Srigley, John R.; Yarbro, John W.; Schramm, Joe.

In: Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Vol. 124, No. 7, 15.08.2000, p. 995-1000.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bostwick, DG, Grignon, DJ, Hammond, MEH, Amin, M, Cohen, M, Crawford, D, Gospadarowicz, M, Kaplan, RS, Miller, DS, Montironi, R, Pajak, TF, Pollack, A, Srigley, JR, Yarbro, JW & Schramm, J 2000, 'Prognostic factors in prostate cancer: College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999', Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, vol. 124, no. 7, pp. 995-1000.
Bostwick, David G. ; Grignon, David J. ; Hammond, M. Elizabeth H. ; Amin, Mahul ; Cohen, Michael ; Crawford, David ; Gospadarowicz, Mary ; Kaplan, Richard S. ; Miller, Daniel S. ; Montironi, Rodolfo ; Pajak, Thomas F. ; Pollack, Alan ; Srigley, John R. ; Yarbro, John W. ; Schramm, Joe. / Prognostic factors in prostate cancer : College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999. In: Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine. 2000 ; Vol. 124, No. 7. pp. 995-1000.
@article{3fe6fe4035764921ab6ef5cd0aaa2527,
title = "Prognostic factors in prostate cancer: College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999",
abstract = "Background. - Under the auspices of the College of American Pathologists, a multidisciplinary group of clinicians, pathologists, and statisticians considered prognostic and predictive factors in prostate cancer and stratified them into categories reflecting the strength of published evidence and taking into account the expert opinions of the Prostate Working Group members. Materials and Methods. - Factors were ranked according to the previous College of American Pathologists categorical rankings: category I, factors proven to be of prognostic importance and useful in clinical patient management; category II, factors that have been extensively studied biologically and clinically but whose importance remains to be validated in statistically robust studies; and category III, all other factors not sufficiently studied to demonstrate their prognostic value. Factors in categories I and II were considered with respect to variations in methods of analysis, interpretation of findings, reporting of data, and statistical evaluation. For each factor, detailed recommendations for improvement were made. Recommendations were based on the following aims: (1) increasing uniformity and completeness of pathologic evaluation of tumor specimens, (2) enhancing the quality of data collected pertaining to existing prognostic factors, and (3) improving patient care. Results and Conclusions. - Factors ranked in category I included preoperative serum prostate-specific antigen level, TNM stage grouping, histologic grade as Gleason score, and surgical margin status. Category II factors included tumor volume, histologic type, and DNA ploidy. Factors in category III included perineural invasion, neuroendocrine differentiation, microvessel density, nuclear roundness, chromatin texture, other karyometric factors, proliferation markers, prostate-specific antigen derivatives, and other factors (oncogenes, tumor suppressor genes, apoptosis genes, etc).",
author = "Bostwick, {David G.} and Grignon, {David J.} and Hammond, {M. Elizabeth H.} and Mahul Amin and Michael Cohen and David Crawford and Mary Gospadarowicz and Kaplan, {Richard S.} and Miller, {Daniel S.} and Rodolfo Montironi and Pajak, {Thomas F.} and Alan Pollack and Srigley, {John R.} and Yarbro, {John W.} and Joe Schramm",
year = "2000",
month = "8",
day = "15",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "124",
pages = "995--1000",
journal = "Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine",
issn = "0003-9985",
publisher = "College of American Pathologists",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Prognostic factors in prostate cancer

T2 - College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999

AU - Bostwick, David G.

AU - Grignon, David J.

AU - Hammond, M. Elizabeth H.

AU - Amin, Mahul

AU - Cohen, Michael

AU - Crawford, David

AU - Gospadarowicz, Mary

AU - Kaplan, Richard S.

AU - Miller, Daniel S.

AU - Montironi, Rodolfo

AU - Pajak, Thomas F.

AU - Pollack, Alan

AU - Srigley, John R.

AU - Yarbro, John W.

AU - Schramm, Joe

PY - 2000/8/15

Y1 - 2000/8/15

N2 - Background. - Under the auspices of the College of American Pathologists, a multidisciplinary group of clinicians, pathologists, and statisticians considered prognostic and predictive factors in prostate cancer and stratified them into categories reflecting the strength of published evidence and taking into account the expert opinions of the Prostate Working Group members. Materials and Methods. - Factors were ranked according to the previous College of American Pathologists categorical rankings: category I, factors proven to be of prognostic importance and useful in clinical patient management; category II, factors that have been extensively studied biologically and clinically but whose importance remains to be validated in statistically robust studies; and category III, all other factors not sufficiently studied to demonstrate their prognostic value. Factors in categories I and II were considered with respect to variations in methods of analysis, interpretation of findings, reporting of data, and statistical evaluation. For each factor, detailed recommendations for improvement were made. Recommendations were based on the following aims: (1) increasing uniformity and completeness of pathologic evaluation of tumor specimens, (2) enhancing the quality of data collected pertaining to existing prognostic factors, and (3) improving patient care. Results and Conclusions. - Factors ranked in category I included preoperative serum prostate-specific antigen level, TNM stage grouping, histologic grade as Gleason score, and surgical margin status. Category II factors included tumor volume, histologic type, and DNA ploidy. Factors in category III included perineural invasion, neuroendocrine differentiation, microvessel density, nuclear roundness, chromatin texture, other karyometric factors, proliferation markers, prostate-specific antigen derivatives, and other factors (oncogenes, tumor suppressor genes, apoptosis genes, etc).

AB - Background. - Under the auspices of the College of American Pathologists, a multidisciplinary group of clinicians, pathologists, and statisticians considered prognostic and predictive factors in prostate cancer and stratified them into categories reflecting the strength of published evidence and taking into account the expert opinions of the Prostate Working Group members. Materials and Methods. - Factors were ranked according to the previous College of American Pathologists categorical rankings: category I, factors proven to be of prognostic importance and useful in clinical patient management; category II, factors that have been extensively studied biologically and clinically but whose importance remains to be validated in statistically robust studies; and category III, all other factors not sufficiently studied to demonstrate their prognostic value. Factors in categories I and II were considered with respect to variations in methods of analysis, interpretation of findings, reporting of data, and statistical evaluation. For each factor, detailed recommendations for improvement were made. Recommendations were based on the following aims: (1) increasing uniformity and completeness of pathologic evaluation of tumor specimens, (2) enhancing the quality of data collected pertaining to existing prognostic factors, and (3) improving patient care. Results and Conclusions. - Factors ranked in category I included preoperative serum prostate-specific antigen level, TNM stage grouping, histologic grade as Gleason score, and surgical margin status. Category II factors included tumor volume, histologic type, and DNA ploidy. Factors in category III included perineural invasion, neuroendocrine differentiation, microvessel density, nuclear roundness, chromatin texture, other karyometric factors, proliferation markers, prostate-specific antigen derivatives, and other factors (oncogenes, tumor suppressor genes, apoptosis genes, etc).

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=12944332009&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=12944332009&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 124

SP - 995

EP - 1000

JO - Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

JF - Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

SN - 0003-9985

IS - 7

ER -