102 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26863477)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
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. 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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. Significant variation in the assessment of cervical involvement in endometrial carcinoma: an interobserver variation study.
McCluggage WG; Hirschowitz L; Wilson GE; Oliva E; Soslow RA; Zaino RJ
Am J Surg Pathol; 2011 Feb; 35(2):289-94. PubMed ID: 21263250
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Endometrial sampling diagnosis of FIGO grade 1 endometrial adenocarcinoma with a background of complex atypical hyperplasia and final hysterectomy pathology.
Leitao MM; Kehoe S; Barakat RR; Alektiar K; Rabbitt C; Chi DS; Soslow RA; Abu-Rustum NR
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2010 Mar; 202(3):278.e1-6. PubMed ID: 20022581
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Agreement Between Preoperative Endometrial Sampling and Surgical Specimen Findings in Endometrial Carcinoma.
Garcia TS; Appel M; Rivero R; Kliemann L; Wender MC
Int J Gynecol Cancer; 2017 Mar; 27(3):473-478. PubMed ID: 28187097
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Prediction of histological types of endometrial cancer by endometrial cytology.
Okadome M; Saito T; Nishiyama N; Ariyoshi K; Shimamoto K; Shimada T; Kodama K; Imamura S; Nishiyama K; Taguchi K
J Obstet Gynaecol Res; 2014 Jul; 40(7):1931-9. PubMed ID: 25056473
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. A Selective Biomarker Panel Increases the Reproducibility and the Accuracy in Endometrial Biopsy Diagnosis.
Nastic D; Shanwell E; Wallin KL; Valla M; Måsbäck A; Mateoiu C; Lidang M; Liakka A; Lappi-Blanco E; Grove A; Davidson B; Carpen O; Bertelsen BI; Bak J; Abusland AB; Selling J; Carlson JW
Int J Gynecol Pathol; 2017 Jul; 36(4):339-347. PubMed ID: 28244894
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Audit of Endometrial Cancer Pathology for a Regional Gynecological Oncology Multidisciplinary Meeting.
Spoor E; Cross P
Int J Gynecol Pathol; 2019 Nov; 38(6):514-519. PubMed ID: 30252729
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
