182 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15725797)
21. Cytological nuclear atypia classification can predict prognosis in patients with endometrial cancer.
Yamaguchi T; Kawahara A; Hattori S; Taira T; Abe H; Sanada S; Akiba J; Nishio S; Ushijima K; Kamura T; Kage M
Cytopathology; 2015 Jun; 26(3):157-66. PubMed ID: 24827996
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. [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]
23. A comparison of three histological grading systems in endometrial cancer.
Bilgin T; Ozuysal S; Ozan H
Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2005 Jun; 272(1):23-5. PubMed ID: 15241614
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. 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]
25. The prognostic value of semiquantitative nuclear grading in endometrial carcinomas.
Hachisuga T; Kawarabayashi T; Iwasaka T; Sugimori H; Kamura T; Tsuneyoshi M
Gynecol Oncol; 1997 Apr; 65(1):115-20. PubMed ID: 9103400
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Long-term outcome in endometrial carcinoma favors a two- instead of a three-tiered grading system.
Scholten AN; Creutzberg CL; Noordijk EM; Smit VT
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2002 Mar; 52(4):1067-74. PubMed ID: 11958903
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Prospective multicenter validation confirms the prognostic superiority of the endometrial carcinoma prognostic index in international Federation of gynecology and obstetrics stage 1 and 2 endometrial carcinoma.
Baak JP; Snijders W; van Diermen B; van Diest PJ; Diepenhorst FW; Benraadt J
J Clin Oncol; 2003 Nov; 21(22):4214-21. PubMed ID: 14615450
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Testing of two binary grading systems for FIGO stage III serous carcinoma of the ovary and peritoneum.
Seidman JD; Horkayne-Szakaly I; Cosin JA; Ryu HS; Haiba M; Boice CR; Yemelyanova AV
Gynecol Oncol; 2006 Nov; 103(2):703-8. PubMed ID: 16828848
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. 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]
30. The Significance of International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Grading in Microsatellite Instability-High and POLE-Mutant Endometrioid Endometrial Carcinoma.
Kertowidjojo E; Momeni-Boroujeni A; Rios-Doria E; Abu-Rustum N; Soslow RA
Mod Pathol; 2023 Sep; 36(9):100234. PubMed ID: 37268062
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Relationships of nuclear, architectural and International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics grading systems in endometrial cancer.
Toptaş T; Peştereli E; Bozkurt S; Erdoğan G; Şimşek T
J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc; 2018 Mar; 19(1):17-22. PubMed ID: 29072178
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. [Clinical significance of FIGO 2009 staging I and its prognostic related factors in endometrial carcinoma].
Zhou J; Zhao L; Qi W; Li X; Wang J; Wei L
Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi; 2014 Oct; 49(10):776-9. PubMed ID: 25537252
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Is there a difference in outcome between stage I-II endometrial cancer of papillary serous/clear cell and endometrioid FIGO Grade 3 cancer?
Alektiar KM; McKee A; Lin O; Venkatraman E; Zelefsky MJ; McKee B; Hoskins WJ; Barakat RR
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2002 Sep; 54(1):79-85. PubMed ID: 12182977
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Pathological classification and grading of primary ovarian carcinoma: experience of the ARTAC ovarian study group.
Vacher-Lavenu MC; Le Tourneau A; Duvillard P; Godefroy N; Pinel MC
Bull Cancer; 1993 Feb; 80(2):135-41. PubMed ID: 8173164
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Prognostic validity of neoplastic cells with notable nuclear atypia in endometrial cancer.
Takeshima N; Hirai Y; Hasumi K
Obstet Gynecol; 1998 Jul; 92(1):119-23. PubMed ID: 9649106
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Prognosis Trend of Grade 2 Endometrioid Endometrial Carcinoma: Toward Grade 1 or 3?
Khatib G; Gulec UK; Guzel AB; Bagir E; Paydas S; Vardar MA
Pathol Oncol Res; 2020 Oct; 26(4):2351-2356. PubMed ID: 32488809
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. 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]
38. Markers of proliferative activity are predictors of patient outcome for low-grade endometrioid adenocarcinoma but not papillary serous carcinoma of endometrium.
Al Kushi A; Lim P; Aquino-Parsons C; Gilks CB
Mod Pathol; 2002 Apr; 15(4):365-71. PubMed ID: 11950909
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. 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]
40. Revision of FIGO surgical staging in 2009 for endometrial cancer validates to improve risk stratification.
Werner HM; Trovik J; Marcickiewicz J; Tingulstad S; Staff AC; Amant F; Salvesen HB;
Gynecol Oncol; 2012 Apr; 125(1):103-8. PubMed ID: 22100838
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
