279 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27631325)
1. A biopsy-integrated algorithm for determining Gleason 6 upgrading risk stratifies risk of active surveillance failure in prostate cancer.
Blute ML; Shiau JM; Truong M; Shi F; Abel EJ; Downs TM; Jarrard DF
World J Urol; 2017 May; 35(5):729-735. PubMed ID: 27631325
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Development and multi-institutional validation of an upgrading risk tool for Gleason 6 prostate cancer.
Truong M; Slezak JA; Lin CP; Iremashvili V; Sado M; Razmaria AA; Leverson G; Soloway MS; Eggener SE; Abel EJ; Downs TM; Jarrard DF
Cancer; 2013 Nov; 119(22):3992-4002. PubMed ID: 24006289
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Prostate-specific antigen vs prostate-specific antigen density as a predictor of upgrading in men diagnosed with Gleason 6 prostate cancer by contemporary multicore prostate biopsy.
Oh JJ; Hong SK; Lee JK; Lee BK; Lee S; Kwon OS; Byun SS; Lee SE
BJU Int; 2012 Dec; 110(11 Pt B):E494-9. PubMed ID: 22540236
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Limitations in Predicting Organ Confined Prostate Cancer in Patients with Gleason Pattern 4 on Biopsy: Implications for Active Surveillance.
Perlis N; Sayyid R; Evans A; Van Der Kwast T; Toi A; Finelli A; Kulkarni G; Hamilton R; Zlotta AR; Trachtenberg J; Ghai S; Fleshner NE
J Urol; 2017 Jan; 197(1):75-83. PubMed ID: 27457260
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The ability of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density to predict an upgrade in Gleason score between initial prostate biopsy and prostatectomy diminishes with increasing tumour grade due to reduced PSA secretion per unit tumour volume.
Corcoran NM; Casey RG; Hong MK; Pedersen J; Connolly S; Peters J; Harewood L; Gleave ME; Costello AJ; Hovens CM; Goldenberg SL
BJU Int; 2012 Jul; 110(1):36-42. PubMed ID: 22085203
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Predicting the risk of harboring high-grade disease for patients diagnosed with prostate cancer scored as Gleason ≤ 6 on biopsy cores.
Seisen T; Roudot-Thoraval F; Bosset PO; Beaugerie A; Allory Y; Vordos D; Abbou CC; De La Taille A; Salomon L
World J Urol; 2015 Jun; 33(6):787-92. PubMed ID: 24985552
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Adverse Disease Features in Gleason Score 3 + 4 "Favorable Intermediate-Risk" Prostate Cancer: Implications for Active Surveillance.
Morlacco A; Cheville JC; Rangel LJ; Gearman DJ; Karnes RJ
Eur Urol; 2017 Sep; 72(3):442-447. PubMed ID: 27574819
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Pathological upgrading in prostate cancer patients eligible for active surveillance: Does prostate-specific antigen density matter?
Jin BS; Kang SH; Kim DY; Oh HG; Kim CI; Moon GH; Kwon TG; Park JS
Korean J Urol; 2015 Sep; 56(9):624-9. PubMed ID: 26366274
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Prostate volume effect on Gleason score upgrading in active surveillance appropriate patients.
Çamur E; Coşkun A; Kavukoğlu Ӧ; Can U; Kara Ö; Develi Çamur A; Sarıca K; Narter KF
Arch Ital Urol Androl; 2019 Jul; 91(2):. PubMed ID: 31266273
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Factors predicting prostate cancer upgrading on magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy in an active surveillance population.
Lai WS; Gordetsky JB; Thomas JV; Nix JW; Rais-Bahrami S
Cancer; 2017 Jun; 123(11):1941-1948. PubMed ID: 28140460
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Risk-stratification based on magnetic resonance imaging and prostate-specific antigen density may reduce unnecessary follow-up biopsy procedures in men on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer.
Alberts AR; Roobol MJ; Drost FH; van Leenders GJ; Bokhorst LP; Bangma CH; Schoots IG
BJU Int; 2017 Oct; 120(4):511-519. PubMed ID: 28267899
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Population-based study of grade progression in patients who harboured Gleason 3 + 3.
Sampurno F; Earnest A; Millar J; Frydenberg M; Murphy D; Delprado W; Evans S
World J Urol; 2017 Nov; 35(11):1689-1699. PubMed ID: 28500489
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A Decade of Active Surveillance in the PRIAS Study: An Update and Evaluation of the Criteria Used to Recommend a Switch to Active Treatment.
Bokhorst LP; Valdagni R; Rannikko A; Kakehi Y; Pickles T; Bangma CH; Roobol MJ;
Eur Urol; 2016 Dec; 70(6):954-960. PubMed ID: 27329565
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Unified model involving genomics, magnetic resonance imaging and prostate-specific antigen density outperforms individual co-variables at predicting biopsy upgrading in patients on active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer.
Beksac AT; Ratnani P; Dovey Z; Parekh S; Falagario U; Roshandel R; Sobotka S; Kewlani D; Davis A; Weil R; Bashorun H; Jambor I; Lewis S; Haines K; Tewari AK
Cancer Rep (Hoboken); 2022 Mar; 5(3):e1492. PubMed ID: 34931468
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Confirmatory Biopsy for Initiating Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer.
Jayadevan R; Felker ER; Kwan L; Barsa DE; Zhang H; Sisk AE; Delfin M; Marks LS
JAMA Netw Open; 2019 Sep; 2(9):e1911019. PubMed ID: 31509206
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Prostate-specific antigen 10-20 ng/mL: A predictor of degree of upgrading to ≥8 among patients with biopsy Gleason score 6.
Santok GD; Abdel Raheem A; Kim LH; Chang K; Lum TG; Chung BH; Choi YD; Rha KH
Investig Clin Urol; 2017 Mar; 58(2):90-97. PubMed ID: 28261677
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Personalised biopsy schedules based on risk of Gleason upgrading for patients with low-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance.
Tomer A; Nieboer D; Roobol MJ; Bjartell A; Steyerberg EW; Rizopoulos D;
BJU Int; 2021 Jan; 127(1):96-107. PubMed ID: 32531869
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Nomograms for predicting Gleason upgrading in a contemporary Chinese cohort receiving radical prostatectomy after extended prostate biopsy: development and internal validation.
He B; Chen R; Gao X; Ren S; Yang B; Hou J; Wang L; Yang Q; Zhou T; Zhao L; Xu C; Sun Y
Oncotarget; 2016 Mar; 7(13):17275-85. PubMed ID: 26943768
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. [Clinically predictive factors of Gleason score upgrading in patients after radical prostatectomy].
Zuo Q; Zhang F; Huang Y; Ma LL; Lu M; Lu J
Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2016 Aug; 48(4):603-606. PubMed ID: 29263497
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Analysis of risk factors for Gleason score upgrading after radical prostatectomy in a Chinese cohort.
Zhang B; Wu S; Zhang Y; Guo M; Liu R
Cancer Med; 2021 Nov; 10(21):7772-7780. PubMed ID: 34528767
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
