170 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21732339)
1. Clinically significant Gleason sum upgrade: external validation and head-to-head comparison of the existing nomograms.
Iremashvili V; Manoharan M; Pelaez L; Rosenberg DL; Soloway MS
Cancer; 2012 Jan; 118(2):378-85. PubMed ID: 21732339
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. 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]
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. 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]
6. A nomogram for predicting upgrading in patients with low- and intermediate-grade prostate cancer in the era of extended prostate sampling.
Moussa AS; Kattan MW; Berglund R; Yu C; Fareed K; Jones JS
BJU Int; 2010 Feb; 105(3):352-8. PubMed ID: 19681898
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparative validation of nomograms predicting clinically insignificant prostate cancer.
Iremashvili V; Soloway MS; Pelaez L; Rosenberg DL; Manoharan M
Urology; 2013 Jun; 81(6):1202-8. PubMed ID: 23561706
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Extent of pelvic lymph node dissection and the impact of standard template dissection on nomogram prediction of lymph node involvement.
Godoy G; Chong KT; Cronin A; Vickers A; Laudone V; Touijer K; Guillonneau B; Eastham JA; Scardino PT; Coleman JA
Eur Urol; 2011 Aug; 60(2):195-201. PubMed ID: 21257258
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A nomogram for predicting low-volume/low-grade prostate cancer: a tool in selecting patients for active surveillance.
Nakanishi H; Wang X; Ochiai A; Trpkov K; Yilmaz A; Donnelly JB; Davis JW; Troncoso P; Babaian RJ
Cancer; 2007 Dec; 110(11):2441-7. PubMed ID: 17932909
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. 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]
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. Assessment of the enhancement in predictive accuracy provided by systematic biopsy in predicting outcome for clinically localized prostate cancer.
Graefen M; Ohori M; Karakiewicz PI; Cagiannos I; Hammerer PG; Haese A; Erbersdobler A; Henke RP; Huland H; Wheeler TM; Slawin K; Scardino PT; Kattan MW
J Urol; 2004 Jan; 171(1):200-3. PubMed ID: 14665876
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Nomograms for predicting Gleason upgrading in a contemporary Chinese cohort receiving radical prostatectomy after extended prostate biopsy: development and internal validation.
He B; Chen R; Gao X; Ren S; Yang B; Hou J; Wang L; Yang Q; Zhou T; Zhao L; Xu C; Sun Y
Oncotarget; 2016 Mar; 7(13):17275-85. PubMed ID: 26943768
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Nomogram predicting the probability of early recurrence after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer.
Walz J; Chun FK; Klein EA; Reuther A; Saad F; Graefen M; Huland H; Karakiewicz PI
J Urol; 2009 Feb; 181(2):601-7; discussion 607-8. PubMed ID: 19084864
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Extended prostate biopsy scheme improves reliability of Gleason grading: implications for radiotherapy patients.
King CR; McNeal JE; Gill H; Presti JC
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2004 Jun; 59(2):386-91. PubMed ID: 15145152
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The novel nomogram of Gleason sum upgrade: possible application for the eligible criteria of low dose rate brachytherapy.
Budäus L; Graefen M; Salomon G; Isbarn H; Lughezzani G; Sun M; Chun FK; Schlomm T; Steuber T; Haese A; Koellermann J; Sauter G; Fisch M; Heinzer H; Huland H; Karakiewicz PI
Int J Urol; 2010 Oct; 17(10):862-8. PubMed ID: 20812920
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. External validation and comparison of two nomograms predicting the probability of Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology in two patient populations: a retrospective cohort study.
Utsumi T; Oka R; Endo T; Yano M; Kamijima S; Kamiya N; Fujimura M; Sekita N; Mikami K; Hiruta N; Suzuki H
Jpn J Clin Oncol; 2015 Nov; 45(11):1091-5. PubMed ID: 26292699
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
