100 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11578487)
1. Further evaluation of reproducibility and prognostic value of histologic typing and grading in FIGO stage I ovarian cancer patients without systemic locoregional adjuvant treatment.
Brugghe J; Baak JP; Wiltshaw E; Fisher C
Int J Gynecol Cancer; 1995 Jul; 5(4):262-268. PubMed ID: 11578487
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
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. 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]
5. Reproducibility and prognostic value of histologic type and grade in early epithelial ovarian cancer.
Bertelsen K; Hølund B; Andersen E
Int J Gynecol Cancer; 1993 Mar; 3(2):72-79. PubMed ID: 11578325
[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. Toward the development of a universal grading system for ovarian epithelial carcinoma. I. Prognostic significance of histopathologic features--problems involved in the architectural grading system.
Shimizu Y; Kamoi S; Amada S; Hasumi K; Akiyama F; Silverberg SG
Gynecol Oncol; 1998 Jul; 70(1):2-12. PubMed ID: 9698465
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Mucoepidermoid carcinoma: a clinicopathologic study of 80 patients with special reference to histological grading.
Brandwein MS; Ivanov K; Wallace DI; Hille JJ; Wang B; Fahmy A; Bodian C; Urken ML; Gnepp DR; Huvos A; Lumerman H; Mills SE
Am J Surg Pathol; 2001 Jul; 25(7):835-45. PubMed ID: 11420454
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparison of the usefulness between a new universal grading system for epithelial ovarian cancer and the FIGO grading system.
Ishioka Si; Sagae S; Terasawa K; Sugimura M; Nishioka Y; Tsukada K; Kudo R
Gynecol Oncol; 2003 Jun; 89(3):447-52. PubMed ID: 12798710
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Minimum spanning tree analysis in advanced ovarian carcinoma. An investigation of sampling methods, reproducibility and correlation with histologic grade.
Brinkhuis M; Meijer GA; van Diest PJ; Schuurmans LT; Baak JP
Anal Quant Cytol Histol; 1997 Jun; 19(3):194-201. PubMed ID: 9196801
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Grading ovarian serous carcinoma using a two-tier system.
Malpica A; Deavers MT; Lu K; Bodurka DC; Atkinson EN; Gershenson DM; Silva EG
Am J Surg Pathol; 2004 Apr; 28(4):496-504. PubMed ID: 15087669
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Interpathologist and intrapathologist disagreement in ovarian tumor grading and typing.
Baak JP; Langley FA; Talerman A; Delemarre JF
Anal Quant Cytol Histol; 1986 Dec; 8(4):354-7. PubMed ID: 3814303
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Comparative study of different histologic classifications in the degree of differentiation in endometrial adenocarcinoma.
Silva-Filho AL; Xavier ÉB; Cândido EB; Macarenco R; Ferreira MC; Xavier MA; Maciel RA; Vidigal PV
Tumori; 2016 Oct; 102(5):488-495. PubMed ID: 27514311
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Quantitative prognostic features in FIGO I ovarian cancer patients without postoperative treatment.
Brugghe J; Baak JP; Wiltshaw E; Brinkhuis M; Meijer GA; Fisher C
Gynecol Oncol; 1998 Jan; 68(1):47-53. PubMed ID: 9454660
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. The efficacy and limitations of repeated slide conferences for improving interobserver agreement when judging nuclear atypia of breast cancer. The Japan National Surgical Adjuvant Study of Breast Cancer (NSAS-BC) Pathology Section.
Tsuda H; Akiyama F; Kurosumi M; Sakamoto G; Watanabe T
Jpn J Clin Oncol; 1999 Feb; 29(2):68-73. PubMed ID: 10089946
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The prognostic value of p53 and c-erb B-2 immunostaining is overrated for patients with lymph node negative breast carcinoma: a multivariate analysis of prognostic factors in 613 patients with a follow-up of 14-30 years.
Reed W; Hannisdal E; Boehler PJ; Gundersen S; Host H; Marthin J
Cancer; 2000 Feb; 88(4):804-13. PubMed ID: 10679650
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The utility of the revised International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics histologic grading of endometrial adenocarcinoma using a defined nuclear grading system. A Gynecologic Oncology Group study.
Zaino RJ; Kurman RJ; Diana KL; Morrow CP
Cancer; 1995 Jan; 75(1):81-6. PubMed ID: 7804981
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Histological grading in a large series of advanced stage ovarian carcinomas by three widely used grading systems: consistent lack of prognostic significance. A translational research subprotocol of a prospective randomized phase III study (AGO-OVAR 3 protocol).
Kommoss S; Schmidt D; Kommoss F; Hedderich J; Harter P; Pfisterer J; du Bois A
Virchows Arch; 2009 Mar; 454(3):249-56. PubMed ID: 19172293
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
