124 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27431497)
1. Can nomograms improve our ability to select candidates for active surveillance for prostate cancer?
Iremashvili V; Manoharan M; Parekh DJ; Punnen S
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis; 2016 Dec; 19(4):385-389. PubMed ID: 27431497
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. A novel nomogram to identify candidates for active surveillance amongst patients with International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Grade Group (GG) 1 or ISUP GG2 prostate cancer, according to multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging findings.
Luzzago S; de Cobelli O; Cozzi G; Peveri G; Bagnardi V; Catellani M; Di Trapani E; Mistretta FA; Pricolo P; Conti A; Alessi S; Marvaso G; Ferro M; Matei DV; Renne G; Jereczek-Fossa BA; Petralia G; Musi G
BJU Int; 2020 Jul; 126(1):104-113. PubMed ID: 32150328
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Pathologic prostate cancer characteristics in patients eligible for active surveillance: a head-to-head comparison of contemporary protocols.
Iremashvili V; Pelaez L; Manoharan M; Jorda M; Rosenberg DL; Soloway MS
Eur Urol; 2012 Sep; 62(3):462-8. PubMed ID: 22445138
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparison of pathological outcomes of active surveillance candidates who underwent radical prostatectomy using contemporary protocols at a high-volume Korean center.
Lee DH; Jung HB; Lee SH; Rha KH; Choi YD; Hong SJ; Yang SC; Chung BH
Jpn J Clin Oncol; 2012 Nov; 42(11):1079-85. PubMed ID: 22988037
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Predictive models and risk of biopsy progression in active surveillance patients.
Iremashvili V; Manoharan M; Kava BR; Parekh DJ; Punnen S
Urol Oncol; 2017 Feb; 35(2):37.e1-37.e8. PubMed ID: 27692836
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Pathological and biochemical outcomes after radical prostatectomy in men with low-risk prostate cancer meeting the Prostate Cancer International: Active Surveillance criteria.
Mitsuzuka K; Narita S; Koie T; Kaiho Y; Tsuchiya N; Yoneyama T; Kakoi N; Kawamura S; Tochigi T; Habuchi T; Ohyama C; Arai Y
BJU Int; 2013 May; 111(6):914-20. PubMed ID: 23320782
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Rule-based versus probabilistic selection for active surveillance using three definitions of insignificant prostate cancer.
Venderbos LD; Roobol MJ; Bangma CH; van den Bergh RC; Bokhorst LP; Nieboer D; Godtman R; Hugosson J; van der Kwast T; Steyerberg EW
World J Urol; 2016 Feb; 34(2):253-60. PubMed ID: 26160006
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A new preoperative nomogram to predict minimal prostate cancer: accuracy and error rates compared to other tools to select patients for active surveillance.
O'Brien BA; Cohen RJ; Ryan A; Sengupta S; Mills J
J Urol; 2011 Nov; 186(5):1811-7. PubMed ID: 21944097
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Pathological outcome for Chinese patients with low-risk prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance and undergoing radical prostatectomy: comparison of six different active surveillance protocols.
Tsang CF; Tsu JH; Lai TC; Wong KW; Ho BS; Ng AT; Ma WK; Yiu MK
Hong Kong Med J; 2017 Dec; 23(6):609-15. PubMed ID: 29026057
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update.
Partin AW; Kattan MW; Subong EN; Walsh PC; Wojno KJ; Oesterling JE; Scardino PT; Pearson JD
JAMA; 1997 May; 277(18):1445-51. PubMed ID: 9145716
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A validated strategy for side specific prediction of organ confined prostate cancer: a tool to select for nerve sparing radical prostatectomy.
Graefen M; Haese A; Pichlmeier U; Hammerer PG; Noldus J; Butz K; Erbersdobler A; Henke RP; Michl U; Fernandez S; Huland H
J Urol; 2001 Mar; 165(3):857-63. PubMed ID: 11176486
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. A nomogram for predicting low-volume/low-grade prostate cancer: a tool in selecting patients for active surveillance.
Nakanishi H; Wang X; Ochiai A; Trpkov K; Yilmaz A; Donnelly JB; Davis JW; Troncoso P; Babaian RJ
Cancer; 2007 Dec; 110(11):2441-7. PubMed ID: 17932909
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Radical prostatectomy in men aged >or=70 years: effect of age on upgrading, upstaging, and the accuracy of a preoperative nomogram.
Richstone L; Bianco FJ; Shah HH; Kattan MW; Eastham JA; Scardino PT; Scherr DS
BJU Int; 2008 Mar; 101(5):541-6. PubMed ID: 18257855
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The biopsy Gleason score 3+4 in a single core does not necessarily reflect an unfavourable pathological disease after radical prostatectomy in comparison with biopsy Gleason score 3+3: looking for larger selection criteria for active surveillance candidates.
Schiavina R; Borghesi M; Brunocilla E; Romagnoli D; Diazzi D; Giunchi F; Vagnoni V; Pultrone CV; Dababneh H; Porreca A; Fiorentino M; Martorana G
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis; 2015 Sep; 18(3):270-5. PubMed ID: 26055663
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Risk of Pathologic Upgrading or Locally Advanced Disease in Early Prostate Cancer Patients Based on Biopsy Gleason Score and PSA: A Population-Based Study of Modern Patients.
Caster JM; Falchook AD; Hendrix LH; Chen RC
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2015 Jun; 92(2):244-51. PubMed ID: 25841621
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Prediction of pathological stage based on clinical stage, serum prostate-specific antigen, and biopsy Gleason score: Partin Tables in the contemporary era.
Tosoian JJ; Chappidi M; Feng Z; Humphreys EB; Han M; Pavlovich CP; Epstein JI; Partin AW; Trock BJ
BJU Int; 2017 May; 119(5):676-683. PubMed ID: 27367645
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparative validation of nomograms predicting clinically insignificant prostate cancer.
Iremashvili V; Soloway MS; Pelaez L; Rosenberg DL; Manoharan M
Urology; 2013 Jun; 81(6):1202-8. PubMed ID: 23561706
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Population based study of predictors of adverse pathology among candidates for active surveillance with Gleason 6 prostate cancer.
Vellekoop A; Loeb S; Folkvaljon Y; Stattin P
J Urol; 2014 Feb; 191(2):350-7. PubMed ID: 24071481
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Evaluation of models predicting insignificant prostate cancer to select men for active surveillance of prostate cancer.
Wong LM; Neal DE; Finelli A; Davis S; Bonner C; Kapoor J; Trachtenberg J; Thomas B; Hovens CM; Costello AJ; Corcoran NM
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis; 2015 Jun; 18(2):137-43. PubMed ID: 25667108
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
