232 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28522288)
1. Grade Group Underestimation in Prostate Biopsy: Predictive Factors and Outcomes in Candidates for Active Surveillance.
Audenet F; Rozet F; Resche-Rigon M; Bernard R; Ingels A; Prapotnich D; Sanchez-Salas R; Galiano M; Barret E; Cathelineau X
Clin Genitourin Cancer; 2017 Dec; 15(6):e907-e913. PubMed ID: 28522288
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Questioning the Status Quo: Should Gleason Grade Group 1 Prostate Cancer be Considered a "Negative Core" in Pre-Radical Prostatectomy Risk Nomograms? An International Multicenter Analysis.
Leong JY; Herrera-Caceres JO; Goldberg H; Tham E; Teplitsky S; Gomella LG; Trabulsi EJ; Lallas CD; Fleshner NE; Tilki D; Chandrasekar T
Urology; 2020 Mar; 137():102-107. PubMed ID: 31705947
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Downgrading of grade group 2 intermediate-risk prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: Comparison of outcomes and predictors to identify potential candidates for active surveillance.
Su ZT; Patel HD; Epstein JI; Pavlovich CP; Allaf ME
Cancer; 2020 Apr; 126(8):1632-1639. PubMed ID: 32031685
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Cribriform morphology predicts upstaging after radical prostatectomy in patients with Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 prostate cancer at transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided needle biopsy.
Keefe DT; Schieda N; El Hallani S; Breau RH; Morash C; Robertson SJ; Mai KT; Belanger EC; Flood TA
Virchows Arch; 2015 Oct; 467(4):437-42. PubMed ID: 26229020
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Metastatic potential to regional lymph nodes with Gleason score ≤7, including tertiary pattern 5, at radical prostatectomy.
Diolombi ML; Epstein JI
BJU Int; 2017 Jun; 119(6):872-878. PubMed ID: 27496532
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. Combined multiple clinical characteristics for prediction of discordance in grade and stage in prostate cancer patients undergoing systematic biopsy and radical prostatectomy.
Liu H; Tang K; Xia D; Peng E; Wang L; Chen Z
Pathol Res Pract; 2020 Nov; 216(11):153235. PubMed ID: 33035728
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades.
Epstein JI; Feng Z; Trock BJ; Pierorazio PM
Eur Urol; 2012 May; 61(5):1019-24. PubMed ID: 22336380
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Pathological upgrading at radical prostatectomy for patients with Grade Group 1 prostate cancer: implications of confirmatory testing for patients considering active surveillance.
Kaye DR; Qi J; Morgan TM; Linsell S; Ginsburg KB; Lane BR; Montie JE; Cher ML; Miller DC;
BJU Int; 2019 May; 123(5):846-853. PubMed ID: 30248225
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Development and internal validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of prostate cancer Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology.
Chun FK; Steuber T; Erbersdobler A; Currlin E; Walz J; Schlomm T; Haese A; Heinzer H; McCormack M; Huland H; Graefen M; Karakiewicz PI
Eur Urol; 2006 May; 49(5):820-6. PubMed ID: 16439050
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Percentage Gleason pattern 4 and PI-RADS score predict upgrading in biopsy Grade Group 2 prostate cancer patients without cribriform pattern.
van der Slot MA; Seyrek N; Kweldam CF; den Bakker MA; Busstra MB; Gan M; Klaver S; Rietbergen JBW; van Leenders GJLH
World J Urol; 2022 Nov; 40(11):2723-2729. PubMed ID: 36190529
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A nomogram for predicting upgrading in patients with low- and intermediate-grade prostate cancer in the era of extended prostate sampling.
Moussa AS; Kattan MW; Berglund R; Yu C; Fareed K; Jones JS
BJU Int; 2010 Feb; 105(3):352-8. PubMed ID: 19681898
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Clinical predictors of Gleason score upgrading: implications for patients considering watchful waiting, active surveillance, or brachytherapy.
Kulkarni GS; Lockwood G; Evans A; Toi A; Trachtenberg J; Jewett MA; Finelli A; Fleshner NE
Cancer; 2007 Jun; 109(12):2432-8. PubMed ID: 17497649
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Significant upgrading affects a third of men diagnosed with prostate cancer: predictive nomogram and internal validation.
Chun FK; Briganti A; Shariat SF; Graefen M; Montorsi F; Erbersdobler A; Steuber T; Salonia A; Currlin E; Scattoni V; Friedrich MG; Schlomm T; Haese A; Michl U; Colombo R; Heinzer H; Valiquette L; Rigatti P; Roehrborn CG; Huland H; Karakiewicz PI
BJU Int; 2006 Aug; 98(2):329-34. PubMed ID: 16879673
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy in Chinese population: Updated nomograms.
Xu H; Bai PD; Hu MB; Mao SH; Zhu WH; Hu JM; Liu SH; Yang T; Hou JY; Hu Y; Ding Q; Jiang HW
Actas Urol Esp; 2017 Apr; 41(3):162-171. PubMed ID: 27522521
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Use of the Prostate Health Index for detection of prostate cancer: results from a large academic practice.
Tosoian JJ; Druskin SC; Andreas D; Mullane P; Chappidi M; Joo S; Ghabili K; Agostino J; Macura KJ; Carter HB; Schaeffer EM; Partin AW; Sokoll LJ; Ross AE
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis; 2017 Jun; 20(2):228-233. PubMed ID: 28117387
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. PI-RADS v2 and periprostatic fat measured on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging can predict upgrading in radical prostatectomy pathology amongst patients with biopsy Gleason score 3 + 3 prostate cancer.
Zhai L; Fan Y; Sun S; Wang H; Meng Y; Hu S; Wang X; Yu W; Jin J
Scand J Urol; 2018; 52(5-6):333-339. PubMed ID: 30895901
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
