International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 5: surgical margins

The 2009 International Society of Urological Pathology Consensus Conference in Boston, made recommendations regarding the standardization of pathology reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens. Issues relating to surgical margin assessment were coordinated by working group 5. Pathologists agreed...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Modern pathology 2011, Vol.24 (1), p.48-57
Hauptverfasser: Tan, Puay Hoon, Cheng, Liang, Srigley, John R, Griffiths, David, Humphrey, Peter A, van der Kwast, Theodore H, Montironi, Rodolfo, Wheeler, Thomas M, Delahunt, Brett, Egevad, Lars, Epstein, Jonathan I
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 57
container_issue 1
container_start_page 48
container_title Modern pathology
container_volume 24
creator Tan, Puay Hoon
Cheng, Liang
Srigley, John R
Griffiths, David
Humphrey, Peter A
van der Kwast, Theodore H
Montironi, Rodolfo
Wheeler, Thomas M
Delahunt, Brett
Egevad, Lars
Epstein, Jonathan I
description The 2009 International Society of Urological Pathology Consensus Conference in Boston, made recommendations regarding the standardization of pathology reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens. Issues relating to surgical margin assessment were coordinated by working group 5. Pathologists agreed that tumor extending close to the ‘capsular’ margin, yet not to it, should be reported as a negative margin, and that locations of positive margins should be indicated as either posterior, posterolateral, lateral, anterior at the prostatic apex, mid-prostate or base. Other items of consensus included specifying the extent of any positive margin as millimeters of involvement; tumor in skeletal muscle at the apical perpendicular margin section, in the absence of accompanying benign glands, to be considered organ confined; and that proximal and distal margins be uniformly referred to as bladder neck and prostatic apex, respectively. Grading of tumor at positive margins was to be left to the discretion of the reporting pathologists. There was no consensus as to how the surgical margin should be regarded when tumor is present at the inked edge of the tissue, in the absence of transected benign glands at the apical margin. Pathologists also did not achieve agreement on the reporting approach to benign prostatic glands at an inked surgical margin in which no carcinoma is present.
doi_str_mv 10.1038/modpathol.2010.155
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_swepu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_swepub_primary_oai_swepub_ki_se_549407</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2228696901</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c521t-a6660715623a9f9c2f8db90cc9088bcf6d574a19814ad9f5aa59db83300552a53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc-O0zAQxi0EYsvCC3BAFhfgkGI7mdTmhipgK63EilJxtBzHCdlN7GA7Qn0iXhNnU4rEgdOMxj9_8-dD6Dkla0py_nZw9ajid9evGZlrAA_QikJOMsI4PEQrwkWe5QLYBXoSwi0htADOHqMLRjZMcMpW6NfORuOtip2zqsd7pzsTj9g1-OBd79pOp-rNfRfXHvHr3f5w8wZvnQ3GhinMWWO8sdpgZ_GVsnXf2RaniPdRtXOetL6oehHyLkQVjY5uOOL9aHQ3JJ01_ub83cy23k0jhnc4TH7pPaiU2PAUPWpUH8yzU7xEh48fvm6vsuvPn3bb99eZBkZjpsqyJBsKJcuVaIRmDa8rQbQWhPNKN2UNm0LRtHuhatGAUiDqiuc5IQBMQX6JskU3_DTjVMnRd2mCo3Sqk6fSXcqMhEIUZJP4Vws_evdjMiHKoQva9L2yxk1BcsYAgBOWyJf_kLduSpfv76FkVVGKBLEF0ulSwZvmPAAlcjZdnk2Xs-kymZ4-vTgpT9Vg6vOXPy4nID8tlZ5sa_zf1v-R_Q3CB75t</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>822089469</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 5: surgical margins</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>SWEPUB Freely available online</source><source>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Tan, Puay Hoon ; Cheng, Liang ; Srigley, John R ; Griffiths, David ; Humphrey, Peter A ; van der Kwast, Theodore H ; Montironi, Rodolfo ; Wheeler, Thomas M ; Delahunt, Brett ; Egevad, Lars ; Epstein, Jonathan I</creator><creatorcontrib>Tan, Puay Hoon ; Cheng, Liang ; Srigley, John R ; Griffiths, David ; Humphrey, Peter A ; van der Kwast, Theodore H ; Montironi, Rodolfo ; Wheeler, Thomas M ; Delahunt, Brett ; Egevad, Lars ; Epstein, Jonathan I ; ISUP Prostate Cancer Group</creatorcontrib><description>The 2009 International Society of Urological Pathology Consensus Conference in Boston, made recommendations regarding the standardization of pathology reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens. Issues relating to surgical margin assessment were coordinated by working group 5. Pathologists agreed that tumor extending close to the ‘capsular’ margin, yet not to it, should be reported as a negative margin, and that locations of positive margins should be indicated as either posterior, posterolateral, lateral, anterior at the prostatic apex, mid-prostate or base. Other items of consensus included specifying the extent of any positive margin as millimeters of involvement; tumor in skeletal muscle at the apical perpendicular margin section, in the absence of accompanying benign glands, to be considered organ confined; and that proximal and distal margins be uniformly referred to as bladder neck and prostatic apex, respectively. Grading of tumor at positive margins was to be left to the discretion of the reporting pathologists. There was no consensus as to how the surgical margin should be regarded when tumor is present at the inked edge of the tissue, in the absence of transected benign glands at the apical margin. Pathologists also did not achieve agreement on the reporting approach to benign prostatic glands at an inked surgical margin in which no carcinoma is present.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0893-3952</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1530-0285</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2010.155</identifier><identifier>PMID: 20729812</identifier><identifier>CODEN: MODPEO</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Nature Publishing Group US</publisher><subject>692/699/67/589/466 ; 692/700/565/545 ; 706/648/180/120 ; Adenocarcinoma - pathology ; Adenocarcinoma - surgery ; Humans ; Laboratory Medicine ; Male ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Neoplasm Staging ; Pathology ; Prostatectomy - methods ; Prostatic Neoplasms - pathology ; Prostatic Neoplasms - surgery ; review ; Societies, Medical ; Specimen Handling - methods ; Urinary Bladder - pathology ; Urinary Bladder - surgery</subject><ispartof>Modern pathology, 2011, Vol.24 (1), p.48-57</ispartof><rights>United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc. 2011</rights><rights>Copyright Nature Publishing Group Jan 2011</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c521t-a6660715623a9f9c2f8db90cc9088bcf6d574a19814ad9f5aa59db83300552a53</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c521t-a6660715623a9f9c2f8db90cc9088bcf6d574a19814ad9f5aa59db83300552a53</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/822089469?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,309,310,314,551,777,781,786,787,882,4010,23911,23912,25121,27904,27905,27906,64364,64366,64368,72218</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20729812$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttp://kipublications.ki.se/Default.aspx?queryparsed=id:122033164$$DView record from Swedish Publication Index$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Tan, Puay Hoon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cheng, Liang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Srigley, John R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Griffiths, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Humphrey, Peter A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van der Kwast, Theodore H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Montironi, Rodolfo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wheeler, Thomas M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Delahunt, Brett</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Egevad, Lars</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Epstein, Jonathan I</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>ISUP Prostate Cancer Group</creatorcontrib><title>International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 5: surgical margins</title><title>Modern pathology</title><addtitle>Mod Pathol</addtitle><addtitle>Mod Pathol</addtitle><description>The 2009 International Society of Urological Pathology Consensus Conference in Boston, made recommendations regarding the standardization of pathology reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens. Issues relating to surgical margin assessment were coordinated by working group 5. Pathologists agreed that tumor extending close to the ‘capsular’ margin, yet not to it, should be reported as a negative margin, and that locations of positive margins should be indicated as either posterior, posterolateral, lateral, anterior at the prostatic apex, mid-prostate or base. Other items of consensus included specifying the extent of any positive margin as millimeters of involvement; tumor in skeletal muscle at the apical perpendicular margin section, in the absence of accompanying benign glands, to be considered organ confined; and that proximal and distal margins be uniformly referred to as bladder neck and prostatic apex, respectively. Grading of tumor at positive margins was to be left to the discretion of the reporting pathologists. There was no consensus as to how the surgical margin should be regarded when tumor is present at the inked edge of the tissue, in the absence of transected benign glands at the apical margin. Pathologists also did not achieve agreement on the reporting approach to benign prostatic glands at an inked surgical margin in which no carcinoma is present.</description><subject>692/699/67/589/466</subject><subject>692/700/565/545</subject><subject>706/648/180/120</subject><subject>Adenocarcinoma - pathology</subject><subject>Adenocarcinoma - surgery</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Laboratory Medicine</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Neoplasm Staging</subject><subject>Pathology</subject><subject>Prostatectomy - methods</subject><subject>Prostatic Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>Prostatic Neoplasms - surgery</subject><subject>review</subject><subject>Societies, Medical</subject><subject>Specimen Handling - methods</subject><subject>Urinary Bladder - pathology</subject><subject>Urinary Bladder - surgery</subject><issn>0893-3952</issn><issn>1530-0285</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>D8T</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc-O0zAQxi0EYsvCC3BAFhfgkGI7mdTmhipgK63EilJxtBzHCdlN7GA7Qn0iXhNnU4rEgdOMxj9_8-dD6Dkla0py_nZw9ajid9evGZlrAA_QikJOMsI4PEQrwkWe5QLYBXoSwi0htADOHqMLRjZMcMpW6NfORuOtip2zqsd7pzsTj9g1-OBd79pOp-rNfRfXHvHr3f5w8wZvnQ3GhinMWWO8sdpgZ_GVsnXf2RaniPdRtXOetL6oehHyLkQVjY5uOOL9aHQ3JJ01_ub83cy23k0jhnc4TH7pPaiU2PAUPWpUH8yzU7xEh48fvm6vsuvPn3bb99eZBkZjpsqyJBsKJcuVaIRmDa8rQbQWhPNKN2UNm0LRtHuhatGAUiDqiuc5IQBMQX6JskU3_DTjVMnRd2mCo3Sqk6fSXcqMhEIUZJP4Vws_evdjMiHKoQva9L2yxk1BcsYAgBOWyJf_kLduSpfv76FkVVGKBLEF0ulSwZvmPAAlcjZdnk2Xs-kymZ4-vTgpT9Vg6vOXPy4nID8tlZ5sa_zf1v-R_Q3CB75t</recordid><startdate>2011</startdate><enddate>2011</enddate><creator>Tan, Puay Hoon</creator><creator>Cheng, Liang</creator><creator>Srigley, John R</creator><creator>Griffiths, David</creator><creator>Humphrey, Peter A</creator><creator>van der Kwast, Theodore H</creator><creator>Montironi, Rodolfo</creator><creator>Wheeler, Thomas M</creator><creator>Delahunt, Brett</creator><creator>Egevad, Lars</creator><creator>Epstein, Jonathan I</creator><general>Nature Publishing Group US</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>ADTPV</scope><scope>AOWAS</scope><scope>D8T</scope><scope>ZZAVC</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2011</creationdate><title>International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 5: surgical margins</title><author>Tan, Puay Hoon ; Cheng, Liang ; Srigley, John R ; Griffiths, David ; Humphrey, Peter A ; van der Kwast, Theodore H ; Montironi, Rodolfo ; Wheeler, Thomas M ; Delahunt, Brett ; Egevad, Lars ; Epstein, Jonathan I</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c521t-a6660715623a9f9c2f8db90cc9088bcf6d574a19814ad9f5aa59db83300552a53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>692/699/67/589/466</topic><topic>692/700/565/545</topic><topic>706/648/180/120</topic><topic>Adenocarcinoma - pathology</topic><topic>Adenocarcinoma - surgery</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Laboratory Medicine</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Neoplasm Staging</topic><topic>Pathology</topic><topic>Prostatectomy - methods</topic><topic>Prostatic Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>Prostatic Neoplasms - surgery</topic><topic>review</topic><topic>Societies, Medical</topic><topic>Specimen Handling - methods</topic><topic>Urinary Bladder - pathology</topic><topic>Urinary Bladder - surgery</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Tan, Puay Hoon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cheng, Liang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Srigley, John R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Griffiths, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Humphrey, Peter A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van der Kwast, Theodore H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Montironi, Rodolfo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wheeler, Thomas M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Delahunt, Brett</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Egevad, Lars</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Epstein, Jonathan I</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>ISUP Prostate Cancer Group</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Calcium &amp; Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>SwePub</collection><collection>SwePub Articles</collection><collection>SWEPUB Freely available online</collection><collection>SwePub Articles full text</collection><jtitle>Modern pathology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Tan, Puay Hoon</au><au>Cheng, Liang</au><au>Srigley, John R</au><au>Griffiths, David</au><au>Humphrey, Peter A</au><au>van der Kwast, Theodore H</au><au>Montironi, Rodolfo</au><au>Wheeler, Thomas M</au><au>Delahunt, Brett</au><au>Egevad, Lars</au><au>Epstein, Jonathan I</au><aucorp>ISUP Prostate Cancer Group</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 5: surgical margins</atitle><jtitle>Modern pathology</jtitle><stitle>Mod Pathol</stitle><addtitle>Mod Pathol</addtitle><date>2011</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>24</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>48</spage><epage>57</epage><pages>48-57</pages><issn>0893-3952</issn><eissn>1530-0285</eissn><coden>MODPEO</coden><abstract>The 2009 International Society of Urological Pathology Consensus Conference in Boston, made recommendations regarding the standardization of pathology reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens. Issues relating to surgical margin assessment were coordinated by working group 5. Pathologists agreed that tumor extending close to the ‘capsular’ margin, yet not to it, should be reported as a negative margin, and that locations of positive margins should be indicated as either posterior, posterolateral, lateral, anterior at the prostatic apex, mid-prostate or base. Other items of consensus included specifying the extent of any positive margin as millimeters of involvement; tumor in skeletal muscle at the apical perpendicular margin section, in the absence of accompanying benign glands, to be considered organ confined; and that proximal and distal margins be uniformly referred to as bladder neck and prostatic apex, respectively. Grading of tumor at positive margins was to be left to the discretion of the reporting pathologists. There was no consensus as to how the surgical margin should be regarded when tumor is present at the inked edge of the tissue, in the absence of transected benign glands at the apical margin. Pathologists also did not achieve agreement on the reporting approach to benign prostatic glands at an inked surgical margin in which no carcinoma is present.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Nature Publishing Group US</pub><pmid>20729812</pmid><doi>10.1038/modpathol.2010.155</doi><tpages>10</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0893-3952
ispartof Modern pathology, 2011, Vol.24 (1), p.48-57
issn 0893-3952
1530-0285
language eng
recordid cdi_swepub_primary_oai_swepub_ki_se_549407
source MEDLINE; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; SWEPUB Freely available online; ProQuest Central UK/Ireland; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects 692/699/67/589/466
692/700/565/545
706/648/180/120
Adenocarcinoma - pathology
Adenocarcinoma - surgery
Humans
Laboratory Medicine
Male
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Neoplasm Staging
Pathology
Prostatectomy - methods
Prostatic Neoplasms - pathology
Prostatic Neoplasms - surgery
review
Societies, Medical
Specimen Handling - methods
Urinary Bladder - pathology
Urinary Bladder - surgery
title International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 5: surgical margins
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-19T04%3A38%3A27IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_swepu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=International%20Society%20of%20Urological%20Pathology%20(ISUP)%20Consensus%20Conference%20on%20Handling%20and%20Staging%20of%20Radical%20Prostatectomy%20Specimens.%20Working%20group%205:%20surgical%20margins&rft.jtitle=Modern%20pathology&rft.au=Tan,%20Puay%20Hoon&rft.aucorp=ISUP%20Prostate%20Cancer%20Group&rft.date=2011&rft.volume=24&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=48&rft.epage=57&rft.pages=48-57&rft.issn=0893-3952&rft.eissn=1530-0285&rft.coden=MODPEO&rft_id=info:doi/10.1038/modpathol.2010.155&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_swepu%3E2228696901%3C/proquest_swepu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=822089469&rft_id=info:pmid/20729812&rfr_iscdi=true