These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

378 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10976693)

  • 1. A binary architectural grading system for uterine endometrial endometrioid carcinoma has superior reproducibility compared with FIGO grading and identifies subsets of advance-stage tumors with favorable and unfavorable prognosis.
    Lax SF; Kurman RJ; Pizer ES; Wu L; Ronnett BM
    Am J Surg Pathol; 2000 Sep; 24(9):1201-8. PubMed ID: 10976693
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The reproducibility of a binary tumor grading system for uterine endometrial endometrioid carcinoma, compared with FIGO system and nuclear grading.
    Sagae S; Saito T; Satoh M; Ikeda T; Kimura S; Mori M; Sato N; Kudo R
    Oncology; 2004; 67(5-6):344-50. PubMed ID: 15713989
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Prognostic significance and interobserver variability of histologic grading systems for endometrial carcinoma.
    Scholten AN; Smit VT; Beerman H; van Putten WL; Creutzberg CL
    Cancer; 2004 Feb; 100(4):764-72. PubMed ID: 14770433
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Description of a novel system for grading of endometrial carcinoma and comparison with existing grading systems.
    Alkushi A; Abdul-Rahman ZH; Lim P; Schulzer M; Coldman A; Kalloger SE; Miller D; Gilks CB
    Am J Surg Pathol; 2005 Mar; 29(3):295-304. PubMed ID: 15725797
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Reproducibility of grading systems for endometrial endometrioid carcinoma and their relation with pathologic prognostic parameters.
    Kapucuoglu N; Bulbul D; Tulunay G; Temel MA
    Int J Gynecol Cancer; 2008; 18(4):790-6. PubMed ID: 17892460
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The reproducibility of histological parameters employed in the novel binary grading systems of endometrial cancer.
    Gemer O; Uriev L; Voldarsky M; Gdalevich M; Ben-Dor D; Barak F; Anteby EY; Lavie O
    Eur J Surg Oncol; 2009 Mar; 35(3):247-51. PubMed ID: 18775628
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Prognosis and reproducibility of new and existing binary grading systems for endometrial carcinoma compared to FIGO grading in hysterectomy specimens.
    Guan H; Semaan A; Bandyopadhyay S; Arabi H; Feng J; Fathallah L; Pansare V; Qazi A; Abdul-Karim F; Morris RT; Munkarah AR; Ali-Fehmi R
    Int J Gynecol Cancer; 2011 May; 21(4):654-60. PubMed ID: 21543931
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. [Significance of prognostic evaluation of International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2009 staging system on stage I endometrioid adenocarcinoma].
    Wang ZQ; Zhang Y; Wang JL; Shen DH; Mu T; Zhao X; Yao YY; Bai Y; Wei LH
    Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi; 2012 Jan; 47(1):33-9. PubMed ID: 22455691
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Architectural versus nuclear atypia-defined FIGO grade 2 endometrial endometrioid adenocarcinoma (EEC): a clinicopathologic comparison of 154 cases with clinical follow-up.
    Winham WM; Lin D; Stone PJ; Nucci MR; Quick CM
    Int J Gynecol Pathol; 2014 Mar; 33(2):120-6. PubMed ID: 24487465
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Redefining stage I endometrial cancer: incorporating histology, a binary grading system, myometrial invasion, and lymph node assessment.
    Barlin JN; Soslow RA; Lutz M; Zhou QC; St Clair CM; Leitao MM; Iasonos A; Hensley ML; Barakat RR; Matias-Guiu X; Abu-Rustum NR
    Int J Gynecol Cancer; 2013 Nov; 23(9):1620-8. PubMed ID: 24126219
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Evaluation of the reproducibility of the revised 1988 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics grading system of endometrial cancers with special emphasis on nuclear grading.
    Nielsen AL; Thomsen HK; Nyholm HC
    Cancer; 1991 Nov; 68(10):2303-9. PubMed ID: 1913466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The prognostic value of nuclear grading and the revised FIGO grading of endometrial adenocarcinoma.
    Ayhan A; Taskiran C; Yuce K; Kucukali T
    Int J Gynecol Pathol; 2003 Jan; 22(1):71-4. PubMed ID: 12496701
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The comparison of the agreement in determining the histological grade of uterine endometrial endometrioid carcinoma, using the three-grade FIGO classification and the two-grade system.
    Demczuk S; Wierzchowski W; Szczepański W; Dyduch G; Czopek J; Stachura J
    Pol J Pathol; 2003; 54(3):179-81. PubMed ID: 14703284
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Prognostic impact of histological grade and vascular invasion compared with tumour cell proliferation in endometrial carcinoma of endometrioid type.
    Stefansson IM; Salvesen HB; Immervoll H; Akslen LA
    Histopathology; 2004 May; 44(5):472-9. PubMed ID: 15139995
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. FIGO Versus Silverberg Grading Systems in Ovarian Endometrioid Carcinoma: A Comparative Prognostic Analysis.
    Parra-Herran C; Bassiouny D; Vicus D; Olkhov-Mitsel E; Cesari M; Ismiil N; Nofech-Mozes S
    Am J Surg Pathol; 2019 Feb; 43(2):161-167. PubMed ID: 30212391
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The Genomic Heterogeneity of FIGO Grade 3 Endometrioid Carcinoma Impacts Diagnostic Accuracy and Reproducibility.
    Hussein YR; Broaddus R; Weigelt B; Levine DA; Soslow RA
    Int J Gynecol Pathol; 2016 Jan; 35(1):16-24. PubMed ID: 26166718
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A Cell Type Independent Binary Grading System Does Not Significantly Improve Endometrial Biopsy Interpretation.
    Nastic D; Kahlin F; Dahlstrand H; Carlson JW
    Int J Gynecol Pathol; 2016 May; 35(3):256-63. PubMed ID: 26863477
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Endometrial Carcinoma Diagnosis: Use of FIGO Grading and Genomic Subcategories in Clinical Practice: Recommendations of the International Society of Gynecological Pathologists.
    Soslow RA; Tornos C; Park KJ; Malpica A; Matias-Guiu X; Oliva E; Parkash V; Carlson J; McCluggage WG; Gilks CB
    Int J Gynecol Pathol; 2019 Jan; 38 Suppl 1(Iss 1 Suppl 1):S64-S74. PubMed ID: 30550484
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The outcome of stage I-II clinically and surgically staged papillary serous and clear cell endometrial cancers when compared with endometrioid carcinoma.
    Cirisano FD; Robboy SJ; Dodge RK; Bentley RC; Krigman HR; Synan IS; Soper JT; Clarke-Pearson DL
    Gynecol Oncol; 2000 Apr; 77(1):55-65. PubMed ID: 10739691
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. [Survival, prognostic factors and modern tendencies in adjuvant treatment of diagnosed endometrial cancer patients with or without lymph node dissection].
    Ivanov I
    Akush Ginekol (Sofiia); 2009; 48 Suppl 1():3-11. PubMed ID: 20387272
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 19.