306 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16439050)
1. Development and internal validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of prostate cancer Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology.
Chun FK; Steuber T; Erbersdobler A; Currlin E; Walz J; Schlomm T; Haese A; Heinzer H; McCormack M; Huland H; Graefen M; Karakiewicz PI
Eur Urol; 2006 May; 49(5):820-6. PubMed ID: 16439050
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Significant upgrading affects a third of men diagnosed with prostate cancer: predictive nomogram and internal validation.
Chun FK; Briganti A; Shariat SF; Graefen M; Montorsi F; Erbersdobler A; Steuber T; Salonia A; Currlin E; Scattoni V; Friedrich MG; Schlomm T; Haese A; Michl U; Colombo R; Heinzer H; Valiquette L; Rigatti P; Roehrborn CG; Huland H; Karakiewicz PI
BJU Int; 2006 Aug; 98(2):329-34. PubMed ID: 16879673
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. External validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of prostate cancer Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology among Japanese patients.
Imamoto T; Suzuki H; Utsumi T; Takano M; Suyama T; Kawamura K; Kamiya N; Naya Y; Ueda T; Ichikawa T
Urology; 2010 Aug; 76(2):404-10. PubMed ID: 19716590
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Factors predicting prostatic biopsy Gleason sum under grading.
Stackhouse DA; Sun L; Schroeck FR; Jayachandran J; Caire AA; Acholo CO; Robertson CN; Albala DM; Polascik TJ; Donatucci CF; Maloney KE; Moul JW
J Urol; 2009 Jul; 182(1):118-22; discussion 123-4. PubMed ID: 19447436
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Development and split-sample validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of seminal vesicle invasion at radical prostatectomy.
Gallina A; Chun FK; Briganti A; Shariat SF; Montorsi F; Salonia A; Erbersdobler A; Rigatti P; Valiquette L; Huland H; Graefen M; Karakiewicz PI
Eur Urol; 2007 Jul; 52(1):98-105. PubMed ID: 17267098
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Validation of a nomogram for prediction of side specific extracapsular extension at radical prostatectomy.
Steuber T; Graefen M; Haese A; Erbersdobler A; Chun FK; Schlom T; Perrotte P; Huland H; Karakiewicz PI
J Urol; 2006 Mar; 175(3 Pt 1):939-44; discussion 944. PubMed ID: 16469587
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of lymph node invasion based on the extent of pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer.
Briganti A; Chun FK; Salonia A; Gallina A; Farina E; Da Pozzo LF; Rigatti P; Montorsi F; Karakiewicz PI
BJU Int; 2006 Oct; 98(4):788-93. PubMed ID: 16796698
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Clinical predictors of Gleason score upgrading: implications for patients considering watchful waiting, active surveillance, or brachytherapy.
Kulkarni GS; Lockwood G; Evans A; Toi A; Trachtenberg J; Jewett MA; Finelli A; Fleshner NE
Cancer; 2007 Jun; 109(12):2432-8. PubMed ID: 17497649
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Biopsy core number represents one of foremost predictors of clinically significant gleason sum upgrading in patients with low-risk prostate cancer.
Capitanio U; Karakiewicz PI; Valiquette L; Perrotte P; Jeldres C; Briganti A; Gallina A; Suardi N; Cestari A; Guazzoni G; Salonia A; Montorsi F
Urology; 2009 May; 73(5):1087-91. PubMed ID: 19195695
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Is there a difference in outcome after radical prostatectomy between patients with biopsy Gleason sums 4, 5, and 6? Results from the SEARCH database.
Freedland SJ; Amling CL; Terris MK; Presti JC; Aronson WJ; Elashoff D; Kane CJ;
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis; 2003; 6(3):261-5. PubMed ID: 12970733
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Clinical and pathologic predictors of Gleason sum upgrading in patients after radical prostatectomy: results from a single institution series.
Tilki D; Schlenker B; John M; Buchner A; Stanislaus P; Gratzke C; Karl A; Tan GY; Ergün S; Tewari AK; Stief CG; Seitz M; Reich O
Urol Oncol; 2011; 29(5):508-14. PubMed ID: 19837614
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Radical prostatectomy in men aged >or=70 years: effect of age on upgrading, upstaging, and the accuracy of a preoperative nomogram.
Richstone L; Bianco FJ; Shah HH; Kattan MW; Eastham JA; Scardino PT; Scherr DS
BJU Int; 2008 Mar; 101(5):541-6. PubMed ID: 18257855
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Preoperative prostate-specific antigen isoform p2PSA and its derivatives, %p2PSA and prostate health index, predict pathologic outcomes in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer.
Guazzoni G; Lazzeri M; Nava L; Lughezzani G; Larcher A; Scattoni V; Gadda GM; Bini V; Cestari A; Buffi NM; Freschi M; Rigatti P; Montorsi F
Eur Urol; 2012 Mar; 61(3):455-66. PubMed ID: 22078333
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Improved accuracy for predicting the Gleason score of prostate cancer by increasing the number of transrectal biopsy cores.
Miyake H; Kurahashi T; Takenaka A; Hara I; Fujisawa M
Urol Int; 2007; 79(4):302-6. PubMed ID: 18025846
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of lymph node invasion among patients undergoing radical prostatectomy and an extended pelvic lymphadenectomy.
Briganti A; Chun FK; Salonia A; Zanni G; Scattoni V; Valiquette L; Rigatti P; Montorsi F; Karakiewicz PI
Eur Urol; 2006 Jun; 49(6):1019-26; discussion 1026-7. PubMed ID: 16530933
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Development and internal validation of a nomogram predicting extracapsular extension in radical prostatectomy specimens.
Satake N; Ohori M; Yu C; Kattan MW; Ohno Y; Miyakawa A; Hatano T; Tachibana M
Int J Urol; 2010 Mar; 17(3):267-72. PubMed ID: 20132361
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The probability of Gleason score upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy can be accurately predicted.
Capitanio U; Karakiewicz PI; Jeldres C; Briganti A; Gallina A; Suardi N; Cestari A; Guazzoni G; Salonia A; Montorsi F
Int J Urol; 2009 May; 16(5):526-9. PubMed ID: 19389085
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A nomogram predicting long-term biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy.
Suardi N; Porter CR; Reuther AM; Walz J; Kodama K; Gibbons RP; Correa R; Montorsi F; Graefen M; Huland H; Klein EA; Karakiewicz PI
Cancer; 2008 Mar; 112(6):1254-63. PubMed ID: 18286530
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Identifying the best candidate for radical prostatectomy among patients with high-risk prostate cancer.
Briganti A; Joniau S; Gontero P; Abdollah F; Passoni NM; Tombal B; Marchioro G; Kneitz B; Walz J; Frohneberg D; Bangma CH; Graefen M; Tizzani A; Frea B; Karnes RJ; Montorsi F; Van Poppel H; Spahn M
Eur Urol; 2012 Mar; 61(3):584-92. PubMed ID: 22153925
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Re: Felix K.-H. Chun, Thomas Steuber, Andreas Erbersdobler, et al. Development and internal validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of prostate cancer Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology. Eur Urol 2006;49:820-26.
Beckley I; Khan MA
Eur Urol; 2007 Oct; 52(4):1270; author reply 1271. PubMed ID: 17611016
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
