428 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22592143)
1. Impact on the clinical outcome of prostate cancer by the 2005 international society of urological pathology modified Gleason grading system.
Dong F; Wang C; Farris AB; Wu S; Lee H; Olumi AF; McDougal WS; Young RH; Wu CL
Am J Surg Pathol; 2012 Jun; 36(6):838-43. PubMed ID: 22592143
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The impact of the 2005 international society of urological pathology consensus conference on standard Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in needle biopsies.
Billis A; Guimaraes MS; Freitas LL; Meirelles L; Magna LA; Ferreira U
J Urol; 2008 Aug; 180(2):548-52; discussion 552-3. PubMed ID: 18550106
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Usual and unusual histologic patterns of high Gleason score 8 to 10 adenocarcinoma of the prostate in needle biopsy tissue.
Gottipati S; Warncke J; Vollmer R; Humphrey PA
Am J Surg Pathol; 2012 Jun; 36(6):900-7. PubMed ID: 22367295
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Implications of the International Society of Urological Pathology modified Gleason grading system.
Egevad L; Mazzucchelli R; Montironi R
Arch Pathol Lab Med; 2012 Apr; 136(4):426-34. PubMed ID: 22458905
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. SOCS3 Immunohistochemical Expression Seems to Support the 2005 and 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Modified Gleason Grading System.
Pierconti F; Martini M; Cenci T; Petrone GL; Ricci R; Sacco E; Bassi PF; Larocca LM
Prostate; 2017 May; 77(6):597-603. PubMed ID: 28144985
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Impact of a tertiary Gleason pattern 4 or 5 on clinical failure and mortality after radical prostatectomy for clinically localised prostate cancer.
Servoll E; Saeter T; Vlatkovic L; Lund T; Nesland J; Waaler G; Axcrona K; Beisland HO
BJU Int; 2012 May; 109(10):1489-94. PubMed ID: 21933333
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Gleason grading: past, present and future.
Delahunt B; Miller RJ; Srigley JR; Evans AJ; Samaratunga H
Histopathology; 2012 Jan; 60(1):75-86. PubMed ID: 22212079
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Upgrade in Gleason score between prostate biopsies and pathology following radical prostatectomy significantly impacts upon the risk of biochemical recurrence.
Corcoran NM; Hong MK; Casey RG; Hurtado-Coll A; Peters J; Harewood L; Goldenberg SL; Hovens CM; Costello AJ; Gleave ME
BJU Int; 2011 Oct; 108(8 Pt 2):E202-10. PubMed ID: 21443656
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Tertiary Gleason pattern 5 is a powerful predictor of biochemical relapse in patients with Gleason score 7 prostatic adenocarcinoma.
Hattab EM; Koch MO; Eble JN; Lin H; Cheng L
J Urol; 2006 May; 175(5):1695-9; discussion 1699. PubMed ID: 16600733
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Architectural heterogeneity and cribriform pattern predict adverse clinical outcome for Gleason grade 4 prostatic adenocarcinoma.
Dong F; Yang P; Wang C; Wu S; Xiao Y; McDougal WS; Young RH; Wu CL
Am J Surg Pathol; 2013 Dec; 37(12):1855-61. PubMed ID: 24145642
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Predictive value of the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology grading system for prostate cancer in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy with long-term follow-up.
Grogan J; Gupta R; Mahon KL; Stricker PD; Haynes AM; Delprado W; Turner J; Horvath LG; Kench JG
BJU Int; 2017 Nov; 120(5):651-658. PubMed ID: 28371244
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Contemporary grading for prostate cancer: implications for patient care.
Brimo F; Montironi R; Egevad L; Erbersdobler A; Lin DW; Nelson JB; Rubin MA; van der Kwast T; Amin M; Epstein JI
Eur Urol; 2013 May; 63(5):892-901. PubMed ID: 23092544
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The impact of the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology consensus guidelines on Gleason grading - a matched-pair analysis.
Berg KD; Thomsen FB; Nerstrøm C; Røder MA; Iversen P; Toft BG; Vainer B; Brasso K
BJU Int; 2016 Jun; 117(6):883-9. PubMed ID: 26823232
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Gleason score 3 + 4=7 prostate cancer with minimal quantity of gleason pattern 4 on needle biopsy is associated with low-risk tumor in radical prostatectomy specimen.
Huang CC; Kong MX; Zhou M; Rosenkrantz AB; Taneja SS; Melamed J; Deng FM
Am J Surg Pathol; 2014 Aug; 38(8):1096-101. PubMed ID: 24832163
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Prognostic impact of intraductal carcinoma and large cribriform carcinoma architecture after prostatectomy in a contemporary cohort.
Trudel D; Downes MR; Sykes J; Kron KJ; Trachtenberg J; van der Kwast TH
Eur J Cancer; 2014 Jun; 50(9):1610-6. PubMed ID: 24703897
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Gleason scoring: a comparison of classical and modified (international society of urological pathology) criteria using nadir PSA as a clinical end point.
Delahunt B; Lamb DS; Srigley JR; Murray JD; Wilcox C; Samaratunga H; Atkinson C; Spry NA; Joseph D; Denham JW
Pathology; 2010 Jun; 42(4):339-43. PubMed ID: 20438406
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Extended biopsy based criteria incorporating cumulative cancer length for predicting clinically insignificant prostate cancer.
Komai Y; Kawakami S; Numao N; Fujii Y; Saito K; Kubo Y; Koga F; Kumagai J; Yamamoto S; Yonese J; Ishikawa Y; Fukui I; Kihara K
BJU Int; 2012 Dec; 110(11 Pt B):E564-9. PubMed ID: 22757686
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System.
Epstein JI; Egevad L; Amin MB; Delahunt B; Srigley JR; Humphrey PA;
Am J Surg Pathol; 2016 Feb; 40(2):244-52. PubMed ID: 26492179
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The combined percentage of Gleason patterns 4 and 5 is the best predictor of cancer progression after radical prostatectomy.
Cheng L; Koch MO; Juliar BE; Daggy JK; Foster RS; Bihrle R; Gardner TA
J Clin Oncol; 2005 May; 23(13):2911-7. PubMed ID: 15860849
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Clinical Validation of the 2005 ISUP Gleason Grading System in a Cohort of Intermediate and High Risk Men Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy.
Faraj SF; Bezerra SM; Yousefi K; Fedor H; Glavaris S; Han M; Partin AW; Humphreys E; Tosoian J; Johnson MH; Davicioni E; Trock BJ; Schaeffer EM; Ross AE; Netto GJ
PLoS One; 2016; 11(1):e0146189. PubMed ID: 26731672
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
