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 *

231 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11025711)

  • 1. Validation of Partin tables for predicting pathological stage of clinically localized prostate cancer.
    Blute ML; Bergstralh EJ; Partin AW; Walsh PC; Kattan MW; Scardino PT; Montie JE; Pearson JD; Slezak JM; Zincke H
    J Urol; 2000 Nov; 164(5):1591-5. PubMed ID: 11025711
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Validation of Partin tables and development of a preoperative nomogram for Japanese patients with clinically localized prostate cancer using 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology consensus on Gleason grading: data from the Clinicopathological Research Group for Localized Prostate Cancer.
    Naito S; Kuroiwa K; Kinukawa N; Goto K; Koga H; Ogawa O; Murai M; Shiraishi T;
    J Urol; 2008 Sep; 180(3):904-9; discussion 909-10. PubMed ID: 18635221
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Validation of 2001 Partin tables in Turkey: a multicenter study.
    Eskicorapci SY; Karabulut E; Türkeri L; Baltaci S; Cal C; Toktas G; Akpinar H; Ozer G; Sozen S; Tokuc R; Lekili M; Soylu A; Albayrak S; Sahin H; Alpar R; Ozen H
    Eur Urol; 2005 Feb; 47(2):185-9. PubMed ID: 15661412
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The newer the better? Comparison of the 1997 and 2001 partin tables for pathologic stage prediction of prostate cancer in China.
    Gao X; Ren S; Lu X; Xu C; Sun Y
    Urology; 2008 Nov; 72(5):1096-101. PubMed ID: 18822453
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. How well does the Partin nomogram predict pathological stage after radical prostatectomy in a community based population? Results of the cancer of the prostate strategic urological research endeavor.
    Penson DF; Grossfeld GD; Li YP; Henning JM; Lubeck DP; Carroll PR
    J Urol; 2002 Apr; 167(4):1653-7; discussion 1657-8. PubMed ID: 11912382
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Comparison of accuracy between the Partin tables of 1997 and 2001 to predict final pathological stage in clinically localized prostate cancer.
    Augustin H; Eggert T; Wenske S; Karakiewicz PI; Palisaar J; Daghofer F; Huland H; Graefen M
    J Urol; 2004 Jan; 171(1):177-81. PubMed ID: 14665871
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Transition zone cancers undermine the predictive accuracy of Partin table stage predictions.
    Steuber T; Karakiewicz PI; Augustin H; Erbersdobler A; Lange I; Haese A; Chun KH; Walz J; Graefen M; Huland H
    J Urol; 2005 Mar; 173(3):737-41. PubMed ID: 15711259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Prediction of extraprostatic cancer by prostate specific antigen density, endorectal MRI, and biopsy Gleason score in clinically localized prostate cancer.
    Horiguchi A; Nakashima J; Horiguchi Y; Nakagawa K; Oya M; Ohigashi T; Marumo K; Murai M
    Prostate; 2003 Jun; 56(1):23-9. PubMed ID: 12746843
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Partin Tables cannot accurately predict the pathological stage at radical prostatectomy.
    Bhojani N; Ahyai S; Graefen M; Capitanio U; Suardi N; Shariat SF; Jeldres C; Erbersdobler A; Schlomm T; Haese A; Steuber T; Heinzer H; Montorsi F; Huland H; Karakiewicz PI
    Eur J Surg Oncol; 2009 Feb; 35(2):123-8. PubMed ID: 18786800
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Multi-institutional external validation of seminal vesicle invasion nomograms: head-to-head comparison of Gallina nomogram versus 2007 Partin tables.
    Zorn KC; Capitanio U; Jeldres C; Arjane P; Perrotte P; Shariat SF; Lee DI; Shalhav AL; Zagaja GP; Shikanov SA; Gofrit ON; Thong AE; Albala DM; Sun L; Karakiewicz PI
    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2009 Apr; 73(5):1461-7. PubMed ID: 18938046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Perineural invasion and seminal vesicle involvement predict pelvic lymph node metastasis in men with localized carcinoma of the prostate.
    Stone NN; Stock RG; Parikh D; Yeghiayan P; Unger P
    J Urol; 1998 Nov; 160(5):1722-6. PubMed ID: 9783940
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Prediction of pathological stage in patients with clinical stage T1c prostate cancer: the new challenge.
    Veltri RW; Miller MC; Mangold LA; O'Dowd GJ; Epstein JI; Partin AW
    J Urol; 2002 Jul; 168(1):100-4. PubMed ID: 12050500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A preoperative nomogram identifying decreased risk of positive pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer.
    Cagiannos I; Karakiewicz P; Eastham JA; Ohori M; Rabbani F; Gerigk C; Reuter V; Graefen M; Hammerer PG; Erbersdobler A; Huland H; Kupelian P; Klein E; Quinn DI; Henshall SM; Grygiel JJ; Sutherland RL; Stricker PD; Morash CG; Scardino PT; Kattan MW
    J Urol; 2003 Nov; 170(5):1798-803. PubMed ID: 14532779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Preoperative neural network using combined magnetic resonance imaging variables, prostate-specific antigen, and Gleason score to predict positive surgical margins.
    Poulakis V; Witzsch U; de Vries R; Emmerlich V; Meves M; Altmannsberger HM; Becht E
    Urology; 2004 Sep; 64(3):516-21. PubMed ID: 15351582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. External validation of the updated Partin tables in a cohort of North American men.
    Karakiewicz PI; Bhojani N; Capitanio U; Reuther AM; Suardi N; Jeldres C; Pharand D; Péloquin F; Perrotte P; Shariat SF; Klein EA
    J Urol; 2008 Sep; 180(3):898-902; discussion 902-3. PubMed ID: 18635222
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The use of neural networks and logistic regression analysis for predicting pathological stage in men undergoing radical prostatectomy: a population based study.
    Borque A; Sanz G; Allepuz C; Plaza L; Gil P; Rioja LA
    J Urol; 2001 Nov; 166(5):1672-8. PubMed ID: 11586200
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The extent of lymphadenectomy for pTXNO prostate cancer does not affect prostate cancer outcome in the prostate specific antigen era.
    DiMarco DS; Zincke H; Sebo TJ; Slezak J; Bergstralh EJ; Blute ML
    J Urol; 2005 Apr; 173(4):1121-5. PubMed ID: 15758719
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A validated strategy for side specific prediction of organ confined prostate cancer: a tool to select for nerve sparing radical prostatectomy.
    Graefen M; Haese A; Pichlmeier U; Hammerer PG; Noldus J; Butz K; Erbersdobler A; Henke RP; Michl U; Fernandez S; Huland H
    J Urol; 2001 Mar; 165(3):857-63. PubMed ID: 11176486
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Preoperative neural network using combined magnetic resonance imaging variables, prostate-specific antigen, and gleason score for predicting prostate cancer biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy.
    Poulakis V; Witzsch U; de Vries R; Emmerlich V; Meves M; Altmannsberger HM; Becht E
    Urology; 2004 Dec; 64(6):1165-70. PubMed ID: 15596191
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. External validation of the updated partin tables in a cohort of French and Italian men.
    Bhojani N; Salomon L; Capitanio U; Suardi N; Shariat SF; Jeldres C; Zini L; Pharand D; Péloquin F; Arjane P; Abbou CC; De La Taille A; Montorsi F; Karakiewicz PI
    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2009 Feb; 73(2):347-52. PubMed ID: 19004573
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.