420 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26956509)
1. Grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma: current state and prognostic implications.
Gordetsky J; Epstein J
Diagn Pathol; 2016 Mar; 11():25. PubMed ID: 26956509
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Contemporary Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: An Update With Discussion on Practical Issues to Implement the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma.
Epstein JI; Amin MB; Reuter VE; Humphrey PA
Am J Surg Pathol; 2017 Apr; 41(4):e1-e7. PubMed ID: 28177964
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A Contemporary Prostate Cancer Grading System: A Validated Alternative to the Gleason Score.
Epstein JI; Zelefsky MJ; Sjoberg DD; Nelson JB; Egevad L; Magi-Galluzzi C; Vickers AJ; Parwani AV; Reuter VE; Fine SW; Eastham JA; Wiklund P; Han M; Reddy CA; Ciezki JP; Nyberg T; Klein EA
Eur Urol; 2016 Mar; 69(3):428-35. PubMed ID: 26166626
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Contemporary Gleason grading and novel Grade Groups in clinical practice.
Magi-Galluzzi C; Montironi R; Epstein JI
Curr Opin Urol; 2016 Sep; 26(5):488-92. PubMed ID: 27308734
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Prostate Cancer Grading: A Decade After the 2005 Modified Gleason Grading System.
Kryvenko ON; Epstein JI
Arch Pathol Lab Med; 2016 Oct; 140(10):1140-52. PubMed ID: 26756649
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system.
Pierorazio PM; Walsh PC; Partin AW; Epstein JI
BJU Int; 2013 May; 111(5):753-60. PubMed ID: 23464824
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Controversial issues in Gleason and International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) prostate cancer grading: proposed recommendations for international implementation.
Srigley JR; Delahunt B; Samaratunga H; Billis A; Cheng L; Clouston D; Evans A; Furusato B; Kench J; Leite K; MacLennan G; Moch H; Pan CC; Rioux-Leclercq N; Ro J; Shanks J; Shen S; Tsuzuki T; Varma M; Wheeler T; Yaxley J; Egevad L
Pathology; 2019 Aug; 51(5):463-473. PubMed ID: 31279442
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Prostate cancer: from Gleason scoring to prognostic grade grouping.
Montironi R; Santoni M; Mazzucchelli R; Burattini L; Berardi R; Galosi AB; Cheng L; Lopez-Beltran A; Briganti A; Montorsi F; Scarpelli M
Expert Rev Anticancer Ther; 2016; 16(4):433-40. PubMed ID: 27008205
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. From Gleason to International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading of prostate cancer.
Samaratunga H; Delahunt B; Yaxley J; Srigley JR; Egevad L
Scand J Urol; 2016 Oct; 50(5):325-9. PubMed ID: 27415753
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. [Grading of prostate cancer].
Kristiansen G; Roth W; Helpap B
Pathologe; 2016 Jul; 37(4):352-4. PubMed ID: 27393141
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Gleason and Fuhrman no longer make the grade.
Delahunt B; Egevad L; Samaratunga H; Martignoni G; Nacey JN; Srigley JR
Histopathology; 2016 Mar; 68(4):475-81. PubMed ID: 26266664
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Outcome of Gleason 3 + 5 = 8 Prostate Cancer Diagnosed on Needle Biopsy: Prognostic Comparison with Gleason 4 + 4 = 8.
Harding-Jackson N; Kryvenko ON; Whittington EE; Eastwood DC; Tjionas GA; Jorda M; Iczkowski KA
J Urol; 2016 Oct; 196(4):1076-81. PubMed ID: 27265220
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. An update of the Gleason grading system.
Epstein JI
J Urol; 2010 Feb; 183(2):433-40. PubMed ID: 20006878
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
