148 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21543931)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
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. 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]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. Comparative study of different histologic classifications in the degree of differentiation in endometrial adenocarcinoma.
Silva-Filho AL; Xavier ÉB; Cândido EB; Macarenco R; Ferreira MC; Xavier MA; Maciel RA; Vidigal PV
Tumori; 2016 Oct; 102(5):488-495. PubMed ID: 27514311
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. FIGO Versus Silverberg Grading Systems in Ovarian Endometrioid Carcinoma: A Comparative Prognostic Analysis.
Parra-Herran C; Bassiouny D; Vicus D; Olkhov-Mitsel E; Cesari M; Ismiil N; Nofech-Mozes S
Am J Surg Pathol; 2019 Feb; 43(2):161-167. PubMed ID: 30212391
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. An analysis of two versus three grades for endometrial carcinoma.
Taylor RR; Zeller J; Lieberman RW; O'Connor DM
Gynecol Oncol; 1999 Jul; 74(1):3-6. PubMed ID: 10385544
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Pap smears in women with endometrial carcinoma.
Gu M; Shi W; Barakat RR; Thaler HT; Saigo PE
Acta Cytol; 2001; 45(4):555-60. PubMed ID: 11480718
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
