96 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17504304)
1. Impact of an increase in grading categories and double reporting on the reliability of breast cancer grade.
Chowdhury N; Pai MR; Lobo FD; Kini H; Varghese R
APMIS; 2007 Apr; 115(4):360-6. PubMed ID: 17504304
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Histologic grading of invasive lobular carcinoma: does use of a 2-tiered nuclear grading system improve interobserver variability?
Adams AL; Chhieng DC; Bell WC; Winokur T; Hameed O
Ann Diagn Pathol; 2009 Aug; 13(4):223-5. PubMed ID: 19608079
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: urologic pathologists.
Allsbrook WC; Mangold KA; Johnson MH; Lane RB; Lane CG; Amin MB; Bostwick DG; Humphrey PA; Jones EC; Reuter VE; Sakr W; Sesterhenn IA; Troncoso P; Wheeler TM; Epstein JI
Hum Pathol; 2001 Jan; 32(1):74-80. PubMed ID: 11172298
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Interobserver agreement of the Nottingham histologic grading scheme for infiltrating duct carcinoma breast.
Sikka M; Agarwal S; Bhatia A
Indian J Cancer; 1999; 36(2-4):149-53. PubMed ID: 10921219
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Histologic grading of breast cancer: linkage of patient outcome with level of pathologist agreement.
Dalton LW; Pinder SE; Elston CE; Ellis IO; Page DL; Dupont WD; Blamey RW
Mod Pathol; 2000 Jul; 13(7):730-5. PubMed ID: 10912931
[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. Measuring impairment caused by leprosy: inter-tester reliability of the WHO disability grading system.
Nienhuis WA; van Brakel WH; Butlin CR; van der Werf TS
Lepr Rev; 2004 Sep; 75(3):221-32. PubMed ID: 15508899
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A single pathological grading system for breast carcinoma should be adopted in Sri Lanka.
de Silva MV; Tilakaratna AD; Rodrigo T
Ceylon Med J; 1998 Dec; 43(4):232-4. PubMed ID: 10355178
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Interobserver variation in breast cancer grading: a statistical modeling approach.
Chowdhury N; Pai MR; Lobo FD; Kini H; Varghese R
Anal Quant Cytol Histol; 2006 Aug; 28(4):213-8. PubMed ID: 16927641
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Prognostic significance of Nottingham histologic grade in invasive breast carcinoma.
Rakha EA; El-Sayed ME; Lee AH; Elston CW; Grainge MJ; Hodi Z; Blamey RW; Ellis IO
J Clin Oncol; 2008 Jul; 26(19):3153-8. PubMed ID: 18490649
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. An assessment of the reliability of the Enneking and Weinstein-Boriani-Biagini classifications for staging of primary spinal tumors by the Spine Oncology Study Group.
Chan P; Boriani S; Fourney DR; Biagini R; Dekutoski MB; Fehlings MG; Ryken TC; Gokaslan ZL; Vrionis FD; Harrop JS; Schmidt MH; Vialle LR; Gerszten PC; Rhines LD; Ondra SL; Pratt SR; Fisher CG
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2009 Feb; 34(4):384-91. PubMed ID: 19214098
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. [Reproducibility of nuclear grade in breast neoplasm. A multicenter experience].
Sundblad AS; Alonso E; Casas JG; Diaz L; Diaz MC; De Elizalde S; Frahm I; Monti J; Muñiz Saavedra V; Ricci L; Vighi S; Zoppi J
Medicina (B Aires); 1996; 56(1):35-40. PubMed ID: 8734928
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. [Reproducibility of histoprognostic grades of invasive breast cancer].
Jacquemier J; Charpin C
Ann Pathol; 1998 Nov; 18(5):385-90. PubMed ID: 9864574
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Short- and long-term effects of a training session on pathologists' performance: the INQAT experience for histological grading in breast cancer.
Paradiso A; Ellis IO; Zito FA; Marubini E; Pizzamiglio S; Verderio P
J Clin Pathol; 2009 Mar; 62(3):279-81. PubMed ID: 19251956
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Breast carcinoma grading, estimation of tumor size, axillary lymph node status, staging, and nottingham prognostic index scoring on mastectomy specimens.
Ahmad Z; Khurshid A; Qureshi A; Idress R; Asghar N; Kayani N
Indian J Pathol Microbiol; 2009; 52(4):477-81. PubMed ID: 19805950
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Interobserver variability in breast carcinoma grading results in prognostic stage differences.
Rabe K; Snir OL; Bossuyt V; Harigopal M; Celli R; Reisenbichler ES
Hum Pathol; 2019 Dec; 94():51-57. PubMed ID: 31655171
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Cosmetic outcomes following breast conservation therapy: in search of a reliable scale.
Fortin AJ; Cheang M; Latosinsky S
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2006 Nov; 100(1):65-70. PubMed ID: 16819568
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Interobserver and intraobserver variability of a two-tier system for grading ovarian serous carcinoma.
Malpica A; Deavers MT; Tornos C; Kurman RJ; Soslow R; Seidman JD; Munsell MF; Gaertner E; Frishberg D; Silva EG
Am J Surg Pathol; 2007 Aug; 31(8):1168-74. PubMed ID: 17667538
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. [Training and standardized criteria improve the diagnosis of premalignant breast lesions].
Salles Mde A; Gouvêa AP; Savi D; Figueiredo MA; Tavares Neto R; Paula RA; Gobbi H
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet; 2008 Nov; 30(11):550-5. PubMed ID: 19148432
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Modified Pfirrmann grading system for lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration.
Griffith JF; Wang YX; Antonio GE; Choi KC; Yu A; Ahuja AT; Leung PC
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2007 Nov; 32(24):E708-12. PubMed ID: 18007231
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
