BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

183 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24238348)

  • 1. Evaluation of prediction models for the staging of prostate cancer.
    Boyce S; Fan Y; Watson RW; Murphy TB
    BMC Med Inform Decis Mak; 2013 Nov; 13():126. PubMed ID: 24238348
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Comparing 3-T multiparametric MRI and the Partin tables to predict organ-confined prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy.
    Gupta RT; Faridi KF; Singh AA; Passoni NM; Garcia-Reyes K; Madden JF; Polascik TJ
    Urol Oncol; 2014 Nov; 32(8):1292-9. PubMed ID: 24863013
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Novel predictive tools for Irish radical prostatectomy pathological outcomes: development and validation.
    Fanning DM; Yue F; Fitzpatrick JM; Watson RW
    Ir J Med Sci; 2010 Jun; 179(2):187-95. PubMed ID: 19597915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Using support vector machine analysis to assess PartinMR: A new prediction model for organ-confined prostate cancer.
    Wang J; Wu CJ; Bao ML; Zhang J; Shi HB; Zhang YD
    J Magn Reson Imaging; 2018 Aug; 48(2):499-506. PubMed ID: 29437268
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. External validation of the 2007 and 2001 Partin tables in Irish prostate cancer patients.
    Fanning DM; Fan Y; Fitzpatrick JM; Watson RW
    Urol Int; 2010; 84(2):174-9. PubMed ID: 20215821
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Machine learning for improved pathological staging of prostate cancer: a performance comparison on a range of classifiers.
    Regnier-Coudert O; McCall J; Lothian R; Lam T; McClinton S; N'dow J
    Artif Intell Med; 2012 May; 55(1):25-35. PubMed ID: 22206941
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Can Radiologic Staging With Multiparametric MRI Enhance the Accuracy of the Partin Tables in Predicting Organ-Confined Prostate Cancer?
    Gupta RT; Brown AF; Silverman RK; Tay KJ; Madden JF; George DJ; Polascik TJ
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2016 Jul; 207(1):87-95. PubMed ID: 27064383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Predicting the presence and side of extracapsular extension: a nomogram for staging prostate cancer.
    Ohori M; Kattan MW; Koh H; Maru N; Slawin KM; Shariat S; Muramoto M; Reuter VE; Wheeler TM; Scardino PT
    J Urol; 2004 May; 171(5):1844-9; discussion 1849. PubMed ID: 15076291
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Implementing the use of nomograms by choosing threshold points in predictive models: 2012 updated Partin Tables vs a European predictive nomogram for organ-confined disease in prostate cancer.
    Borque Á; Rubio-Briones J; Esteban LM; Sanz G; Domínguez-Escrig J; Ramírez-Backhaus M; Calatrava A; Solsona E
    BJU Int; 2014 Jun; 113(6):878-86. PubMed ID: 24529282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Accuracy of 3-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging for the staging of prostate cancer in comparison to the Partin tables.
    Augustin H; Fritz GA; Ehammer T; Auprich M; Pummer K
    Acta Radiol; 2009 Jun; 50(5):562-9. PubMed ID: 19455449
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Development and Validation of a Lookup Table for the Prediction of Metastatic Prostate Cancer According to Prostatic-specific Antigen Value, Clinical Tumor Stage, and Gleason Grade Groups.
    Preisser F; Bandini M; Nazzani S; Mazzone E; Marchioni M; Tian Z; Chun FKH; Saad F; Briganti A; Haese A; Montorsi F; Huland H; Graefen M; Tilki D; Karakiewicz PI
    Eur Urol Oncol; 2020 Oct; 3(5):631-639. PubMed ID: 31411975
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Are Partin tables suitable for Chinese patients with prostate cancer?
    Shen XC; Qiu YQ; Zheng YC; Zhang SZ
    Chin Med J (Engl); 2012 Nov; 125(21):3795-9. PubMed ID: 23106876
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The newer the better? Comparison of the 1997 and 2001 partin tables for pathologic stage prediction of prostate cancer in China.
    Gao X; Ren S; Lu X; Xu C; Sun Y
    Urology; 2008 Nov; 72(5):1096-101. PubMed ID: 18822453
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Partin Tables cannot accurately predict the pathological stage at radical prostatectomy.
    Bhojani N; Ahyai S; Graefen M; Capitanio U; Suardi N; Shariat SF; Jeldres C; Erbersdobler A; Schlomm T; Haese A; Steuber T; Heinzer H; Montorsi F; Huland H; Karakiewicz PI
    Eur J Surg Oncol; 2009 Feb; 35(2):123-8. PubMed ID: 18786800
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Nomograms to predict the pathological stage of clinically localized prostate cancer in Korean men: comparison with western predictive tools using decision curve analysis.
    Jeong CW; Jeong SJ; Hong SK; Lee SB; Ku JH; Byun SS; Jeong H; Kwak C; Kim HH; Lee E; Lee SE
    Int J Urol; 2012 Sep; 19(9):846-52. PubMed ID: 22587373
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Adding multiparametric MRI to the MSKCC and Partin nomograms for primary prostate cancer: Improving local tumor staging?
    Jansen BHE; Nieuwenhuijzen JA; Oprea-Lager DE; Yska MJ; Lont AP; van Moorselaar RJA; Vis AN
    Urol Oncol; 2019 Mar; 37(3):181.e1-181.e6. PubMed ID: 30558983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. One-Stop-Shop Whole-Body
    Thalgott M; Düwel C; Rauscher I; Heck MM; Haller B; Gafita A; Gschwend JE; Schwaiger M; Maurer T; Eiber M
    J Nucl Med; 2018 Dec; 59(12):1850-1856. PubMed ID: 29794224
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Comparison of predictive accuracy for pathologically organ confined clinical stage T1c prostate cancer using human glandular kallikrein 2 and prostate specific antigen combined with clinical stage and Gleason grade.
    Haese A; Vaisanen V; Lilja H; Kattan MW; Rittenhouse HG; Pettersson K; Chan DW; Huland H; Sokoll LJ; Partin AW
    J Urol; 2005 Mar; 173(3):752-6. PubMed ID: 15711262
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparison of three different tools for prediction of seminal vesicle invasion at radical prostatectomy.
    Lughezzani G; Zorn KC; Budäus L; Sun M; Lee DI; Shalhav AL; Zagaya GP; Shikanov SA; Gofrit ON; Thong AE; Albala DM; Sun L; Cronin A; Vickers AJ; Karakiewicz PI
    Eur Urol; 2012 Oct; 62(4):590-6. PubMed ID: 22561078
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.