182 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15725797)
1. 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]
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 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 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. Carcinoma of the endometrium: do the nuclear grade and DNA ploidy provide more prognostic information than do the FIGO and WHO classifications?
Nordström B; Strang P; Lindgren A; Bergström R; Tribukait B
Int J Gynecol Pathol; 1996 Jul; 15(3):191-201. PubMed ID: 8811379
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Prognostic impact of morphometric nuclear grade of endometrial carcinoma.
Salvesen HB; Iversen OE; Akslen LA
Cancer; 1998 Sep; 83(5):956-64. PubMed ID: 9731900
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. The prognostic value of nuclear versus architectural grading in endometrial adenocarcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study.
Zaino RJ; Silverberg SG; Norris HJ; Bundy BN; Morrow CP; Okagaki T
Int J Gynecol Pathol; 1994 Jan; 13(1):29-36. PubMed ID: 8112954
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Interpretation of p53 immunoreactivity in endometrial carcinoma: establishing a clinically relevant cut-off level.
Alkushi A; Lim P; Coldman A; Huntsman D; Miller D; Gilks CB
Int J Gynecol Pathol; 2004 Apr; 23(2):129-37. PubMed ID: 15084841
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. Validation of the histologic grading for ovarian clear cell adenocarcinoma: a retrospective multi-institutional study by the Japan Clear Cell Carcinoma Study Group.
Yamamoto S; Kasajima A; Takano M; Yaegashi N; Fujiwara H; Kuzuya K; Kigawa J; Tsuda H; Kurachi H; Kikuchi Y; Sugiyama T; Tsuda H; Moriya T
Int J Gynecol Pathol; 2011 Mar; 30(2):129-38. PubMed ID: 21293288
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
