738 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18635221)
1. Validation of Partin tables and development of a preoperative nomogram for Japanese patients with clinically localized prostate cancer using 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology consensus on Gleason grading: data from the Clinicopathological Research Group for Localized Prostate Cancer.
Naito S; Kuroiwa K; Kinukawa N; Goto K; Koga H; Ogawa O; Murai M; Shiraishi T;
J Urol; 2008 Sep; 180(3):904-9; discussion 909-10. PubMed ID: 18635221
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Validation of Partin tables for predicting pathological stage of clinically localized prostate cancer.
Blute ML; Bergstralh EJ; Partin AW; Walsh PC; Kattan MW; Scardino PT; Montie JE; Pearson JD; Slezak JM; Zincke H
J Urol; 2000 Nov; 164(5):1591-5. PubMed ID: 11025711
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. How well does the Partin nomogram predict pathological stage after radical prostatectomy in a community based population? Results of the cancer of the prostate strategic urological research endeavor.
Penson DF; Grossfeld GD; Li YP; Henning JM; Lubeck DP; Carroll PR
J Urol; 2002 Apr; 167(4):1653-7; discussion 1657-8. PubMed ID: 11912382
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Validation of 2001 Partin tables in Turkey: a multicenter study.
Eskicorapci SY; Karabulut E; Türkeri L; Baltaci S; Cal C; Toktas G; Akpinar H; Ozer G; Sozen S; Tokuc R; Lekili M; Soylu A; Albayrak S; Sahin H; Alpar R; Ozen H
Eur Urol; 2005 Feb; 47(2):185-9. PubMed ID: 15661412
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparison of accuracy between the Partin tables of 1997 and 2001 to predict final pathological stage in clinically localized prostate cancer.
Augustin H; Eggert T; Wenske S; Karakiewicz PI; Palisaar J; Daghofer F; Huland H; Graefen M
J Urol; 2004 Jan; 171(1):177-81. PubMed ID: 14665871
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Prediction of extraprostatic cancer by prostate specific antigen density, endorectal MRI, and biopsy Gleason score in clinically localized prostate cancer.
Horiguchi A; Nakashima J; Horiguchi Y; Nakagawa K; Oya M; Ohigashi T; Marumo K; Murai M
Prostate; 2003 Jun; 56(1):23-9. PubMed ID: 12746843
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Preoperative neural network using combined magnetic resonance imaging variables, prostate-specific antigen, and gleason score for predicting prostate cancer biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy.
Poulakis V; Witzsch U; de Vries R; Emmerlich V; Meves M; Altmannsberger HM; Becht E
Urology; 2004 Dec; 64(6):1165-70. PubMed ID: 15596191
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Preoperative neural network using combined magnetic resonance imaging variables, prostate-specific antigen, and Gleason score to predict positive surgical margins.
Poulakis V; Witzsch U; de Vries R; Emmerlich V; Meves M; Altmannsberger HM; Becht E
Urology; 2004 Sep; 64(3):516-21. PubMed ID: 15351582
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A preoperative nomogram identifying decreased risk of positive pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer.
Cagiannos I; Karakiewicz P; Eastham JA; Ohori M; Rabbani F; Gerigk C; Reuter V; Graefen M; Hammerer PG; Erbersdobler A; Huland H; Kupelian P; Klein E; Quinn DI; Henshall SM; Grygiel JJ; Sutherland RL; Stricker PD; Morash CG; Scardino PT; Kattan MW
J Urol; 2003 Nov; 170(5):1798-803. PubMed ID: 14532779
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. External validation of the updated Partin tables in a cohort of North American men.
Karakiewicz PI; Bhojani N; Capitanio U; Reuther AM; Suardi N; Jeldres C; Pharand D; Péloquin F; Perrotte P; Shariat SF; Klein EA
J Urol; 2008 Sep; 180(3):898-902; discussion 902-3. PubMed ID: 18635222
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. The newer the better? Comparison of the 1997 and 2001 partin tables for pathologic stage prediction of prostate cancer in China.
Gao X; Ren S; Lu X; Xu C; Sun Y
Urology; 2008 Nov; 72(5):1096-101. PubMed ID: 18822453
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Multi-institutional external validation of seminal vesicle invasion nomograms: head-to-head comparison of Gallina nomogram versus 2007 Partin tables.
Zorn KC; Capitanio U; Jeldres C; Arjane P; Perrotte P; Shariat SF; Lee DI; Shalhav AL; Zagaja GP; Shikanov SA; Gofrit ON; Thong AE; Albala DM; Sun L; Karakiewicz PI
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2009 Apr; 73(5):1461-7. PubMed ID: 18938046
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Transition zone cancers undermine the predictive accuracy of Partin table stage predictions.
Steuber T; Karakiewicz PI; Augustin H; Erbersdobler A; Lange I; Haese A; Chun KH; Walz J; Graefen M; Huland H
J Urol; 2005 Mar; 173(3):737-41. PubMed ID: 15711259
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. [Problems of the preoperative prediction of the pathological stage in prostate cancer].
Konomoto T; Naito S
Gan To Kagaku Ryoho; 2003 Jan; 30(1):21-5. PubMed ID: 12557700
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Validation of pretreatment nomograms for predicting indolent prostate cancer: efficacy in contemporary urological practice.
Dong F; Kattan MW; Steyerberg EW; Jones JS; Stephenson AJ; Schröder FH; Klein EA
J Urol; 2008 Jul; 180(1):150-4; discussion 154. PubMed ID: 18485398
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Machine learning for improved pathological staging of prostate cancer: a performance comparison on a range of classifiers.
Regnier-Coudert O; McCall J; Lothian R; Lam T; McClinton S; N'dow J
Artif Intell Med; 2012 May; 55(1):25-35. PubMed ID: 22206941
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of accuracy among three generations of Partin tables in a Chinese cohort.
Xiao WJ; Ye DW; Yao XD; Zhang SL; Dai B; Wang CF; Wang J; Zhang HL; Shen YJ; Zhu Y; Zhu YP; Shi GH; Ma CG; Qin XJ; Lin GW
Can J Urol; 2011 Apr; 18(2):5619-24. PubMed ID: 21504650
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
