125 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1913466)
1. 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]
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. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
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. Atypical Endometrial Hyperplasia, Low-grade: "Much ADO About Nothing".
D'Angelo E; Espinosa I; Cipriani V; Szafranska J; Barbareschi M; Prat J
Am J Surg Pathol; 2021 Jul; 45(7):988-996. PubMed ID: 34105519
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging of endometrial cancer 1988.
Mikuta JJ
Cancer; 1993 Feb; 71(4 Suppl):1460-3. PubMed ID: 8431880
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. Interobserver agreement for tumour type, grade of differentiation and stage in endometrial carcinomas.
Nedergaard L; Jacobsen M; Andersen JE
APMIS; 1995; 103(7-8):511-8. PubMed ID: 7576566
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
