BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

220 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23458939)

  • 1. Gleason grading of prostate cancer in needle core biopsies: a comparison of general and urologic pathologists.
    Al-Maghrabi JA; Bakshi NA; Farsi HM
    Ann Saudi Med; 2013; 33(1):40-4. PubMed ID: 23458939
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Accurate Gleason grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma in prostate needle biopsies by general pathologists.
    Renshaw AA; Schultz D; Cote K; Loffredo M; Ziemba DE; D'Amico AV
    Arch Pathol Lab Med; 2003 Aug; 127(8):1007-8. PubMed ID: 12873176
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A comparison of interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in Japan and the United States.
    Oyama T; Allsbrook WC; Kurokawa K; Matsuda H; Segawa A; Sano T; Suzuki K; Epstein JI
    Arch Pathol Lab Med; 2005 Aug; 129(8):1004-10. PubMed ID: 16048389
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: urologic pathologists.
    Allsbrook WC; Mangold KA; Johnson MH; Lane RB; Lane CG; Amin MB; Bostwick DG; Humphrey PA; Jones EC; Reuter VE; Sakr W; Sesterhenn IA; Troncoso P; Wheeler TM; Epstein JI
    Hum Pathol; 2001 Jan; 32(1):74-80. PubMed ID: 11172298
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison of Classic and International Society of Urological Pathology 2005 Modified Gleason grading using needle biopsies from the Reduction by Dutasteride of Prostate Cancer Events (REDUCE) trial.
    Lucia MS; Bostwick DG; Somerville MC; Fowler IL; Rittmaster RS
    Arch Pathol Lab Med; 2013 Dec; 137(12):1740-6. PubMed ID: 24283854
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Automated deep-learning system for Gleason grading of prostate cancer using biopsies: a diagnostic study.
    Bulten W; Pinckaers H; van Boven H; Vink R; de Bel T; van Ginneken B; van der Laak J; Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C; Litjens G
    Lancet Oncol; 2020 Feb; 21(2):233-241. PubMed ID: 31926805
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Evaluation of the Use of Combined Artificial Intelligence and Pathologist Assessment to Review and Grade Prostate Biopsies.
    Steiner DF; Nagpal K; Sayres R; Foote DJ; Wedin BD; Pearce A; Cai CJ; Winter SR; Symonds M; Yatziv L; Kapishnikov A; Brown T; Flament-Auvigne I; Tan F; Stumpe MC; Jiang PP; Liu Y; Chen PC; Corrado GS; Terry M; Mermel CH
    JAMA Netw Open; 2020 Nov; 3(11):e2023267. PubMed ID: 33180129
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Review by urological pathologists improves the accuracy of Gleason grading by general pathologists.
    Nakai Y; Tanaka N; Shimada K; Konishi N; Miyake M; Anai S; Fujimoto K
    BMC Urol; 2015 Jul; 15():70. PubMed ID: 26201393
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Interobserver variability in Gleason histological grading of prostate cancer.
    Ozkan TA; Eruyar AT; Cebeci OO; Memik O; Ozcan L; Kuskonmaz I
    Scand J Urol; 2016 Dec; 50(6):420-424. PubMed ID: 27416104
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Increasing the number of biopsies increases the concordance of Gleason scores of needle biopsies and prostatectomy specimens.
    Divrik RT; Eroglu A; Sahin A; Zorlu F; Ozen H
    Urol Oncol; 2007; 25(5):376-82. PubMed ID: 17826653
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: general pathologist.
    Allsbrook WC; Mangold KA; Johnson MH; Lane RB; Lane CG; Epstein JI
    Hum Pathol; 2001 Jan; 32(1):81-8. PubMed ID: 11172299
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Impact of prostate biopsy secondary pathology review on radiotherapy management.
    Siedow M; Eisner M; Yaney A; Washington I; Zynger D; Martin D; Mo X; Diconstanzo D; Diaz DA
    Prostate; 2022 Feb; 82(2):210-215. PubMed ID: 34698410
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The reasons behind variation in Gleason grading of prostatic biopsies: areas of agreement and misconception among 266 European pathologists.
    Berney DM; Algaba F; Camparo P; Compérat E; Griffiths D; Kristiansen G; Lopez-Beltran A; Montironi R; Varma M; Egevad L
    Histopathology; 2014 Feb; 64(3):405-11. PubMed ID: 24102975
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Gleason scores of prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens over the past 10 years: is there evidence for systematic upgrading?
    Smith EB; Frierson HF; Mills SE; Boyd JC; Theodorescu D
    Cancer; 2002 Apr; 94(8):2282-7. PubMed ID: 12001128
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Gleason scores from prostate biopsies obtained with 18-gauge biopsy needles poorly predict Gleason scores of radical prostatectomy specimens.
    Djavan B; Kadesky K; Klopukh B; Marberger M; Roehrborn CG
    Eur Urol; 1998; 33(3):261-70. PubMed ID: 9555550
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Artificial intelligence for diagnosis and grading of prostate cancer in biopsies: a population-based, diagnostic study.
    Ström P; Kartasalo K; Olsson H; Solorzano L; Delahunt B; Berney DM; Bostwick DG; Evans AJ; Grignon DJ; Humphrey PA; Iczkowski KA; Kench JG; Kristiansen G; van der Kwast TH; Leite KRM; McKenney JK; Oxley J; Pan CC; Samaratunga H; Srigley JR; Takahashi H; Tsuzuki T; Varma M; Zhou M; Lindberg J; Lindskog C; Ruusuvuori P; Wählby C; Grönberg H; Rantalainen M; Egevad L; Eklund M
    Lancet Oncol; 2020 Feb; 21(2):222-232. PubMed ID: 31926806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Artificial intelligence system shows performance at the level of uropathologists for the detection and grading of prostate cancer in core needle biopsy: an independent external validation study.
    Jung M; Jin MS; Kim C; Lee C; Nikas IP; Park JH; Ryu HS
    Mod Pathol; 2022 Oct; 35(10):1449-1457. PubMed ID: 35487950
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading: evaluation using prostate cancer tissue microarrays.
    Burchardt M; Engers R; Müller M; Burchardt T; Willers R; Epstein JI; Ackermann R; Gabbert HE; de la Taille A; Rubin MA
    J Cancer Res Clin Oncol; 2008 Oct; 134(10):1071-8. PubMed ID: 18392850
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Evaluation of concordance of Gleason score between prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy.
    Mansouri N; Msakni I; Gargouri F; Khiari R; Bouziani A; Laabidi B
    Tunis Med; 2018 Jul; 96(7):430-436. PubMed ID: 30430487
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.