These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

122 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30312670)

  • 61. Postoperative upgrading of prostate cancer in men ≥75 years: a propensity score-matched analysis.
    Herlemann A; Buchner A; Kretschmer A; Apfelbeck M; Stief CG; Gratzke C; Tritschler S
    World J Urol; 2017 Oct; 35(10):1517-1524. PubMed ID: 28493044
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 62. Usefulness of the 2005 International Society of Urologic Pathology Gleason grading system in prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens.
    Uemura H; Hoshino K; Sasaki T; Miyoshi Y; Ishiguro H; Inayama Y; Kubota Y
    BJU Int; 2009 May; 103(9):1190-4. PubMed ID: 19076142
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 63. Does Small Prostate Predict High Grade Prostate Cancer?
    Çaliskan S; Kaba SL; Koca O; Öztürk MI
    J Coll Physicians Surg Pak; 2017 Feb; 27(2):97-100. PubMed ID: 28292387
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 64. Gleason grade remains an important prognostic predictor in men diagnosed with prostate cancer while on finasteride therapy.
    Carver BS; Kattan MW; Scardino PT; Eastham JA
    BJU Int; 2005 Mar; 95(4):509-12. PubMed ID: 15705069
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 65. The percentage of prostate needle biopsy cores with carcinoma from the more involved side of the biopsy as a predictor of prostate specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy: results from the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital (SEARCH) database.
    Freedland SJ; Aronson WJ; Terris MK; Kane CJ; Amling CL; Dorey F; Presti JC
    Cancer; 2003 Dec; 98(11):2344-50. PubMed ID: 14635068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 66. Development of a Deep Learning Algorithm for the Histopathologic Diagnosis and Gleason Grading of Prostate Cancer Biopsies: A Pilot Study.
    Kott O; Linsley D; Amin A; Karagounis A; Jeffers C; Golijanin D; Serre T; Gershman B
    Eur Urol Focus; 2021 Mar; 7(2):347-351. PubMed ID: 31767543
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 67. 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]  

  • 68. Transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy does not reliably identify dominant cancer location in men with low-risk prostate cancer.
    Washington SL; Bonham M; Whitson JM; Cowan JE; Carroll PR
    BJU Int; 2012 Jul; 110(1):50-5. PubMed ID: 22077660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 69. 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]  

  • 70. Preoperative prostate-specific antigen isoform p2PSA and its derivatives, %p2PSA and prostate health index, predict pathologic outcomes in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer.
    Guazzoni G; Lazzeri M; Nava L; Lughezzani G; Larcher A; Scattoni V; Gadda GM; Bini V; Cestari A; Buffi NM; Freschi M; Rigatti P; Montorsi F
    Eur Urol; 2012 Mar; 61(3):455-66. PubMed ID: 22078333
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 71. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, Version 2, Assessment Categories and Pathologic Outcomes in Patients With Gleason Score 3 + 4 = 7 Prostate Cancer Diagnosed at Biopsy.
    Lim CS; McInnes MDF; Flood TA; Breau RH; Morash C; Thornhill RE; Schieda N
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 May; 208(5):1037-1044. PubMed ID: 28267359
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 72. Radical prostatectomy for low-risk prostate cancer following initial active surveillance: results from a prospective observational study.
    Bul M; Zhu X; Rannikko A; Staerman F; Valdagni R; Pickles T; Bangma CH; Roobol MJ
    Eur Urol; 2012 Aug; 62(2):195-200. PubMed ID: 22342775
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 73. Automatic Gleason grading of prostate cancer using quantitative phase imaging and machine learning.
    Nguyen TH; Sridharan S; Macias V; Kajdacsy-Balla A; Melamed J; Do MN; Popescu G
    J Biomed Opt; 2017 Mar; 22(3):36015. PubMed ID: 28358941
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 74. Identification of proteomic biomarkers predicting prostate cancer aggressiveness and lethality despite biopsy-sampling error.
    Shipitsin M; Small C; Choudhury S; Giladi E; Friedlander S; Nardone J; Hussain S; Hurley AD; Ernst C; Huang YE; Chang H; Nifong TP; Rimm DL; Dunyak J; Loda M; Berman DM; Blume-Jensen P
    Br J Cancer; 2014 Sep; 111(6):1201-12. PubMed ID: 25032733
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 75. A 17-gene Panel for Prediction of Adverse Prostate Cancer Pathologic Features: Prospective Clinical Validation and Utility.
    Eggener S; Karsh LI; Richardson T; Shindel AW; Lu R; Rosenberg S; Goldfischer E; Korman H; Bennett J; Newmark J; Denes BS
    Urology; 2019 Apr; 126():76-82. PubMed ID: 30611659
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 76. Mesoscopic characterization of prostate cancer using Raman spectroscopy: potential for diagnostics and therapeutics.
    Aubertin K; Trinh VQ; Jermyn M; Baksic P; Grosset AA; Desroches J; St-Arnaud K; Birlea M; Vladoiu MC; Latour M; Albadine R; Saad F; Leblond F; Trudel D
    BJU Int; 2018 Aug; 122(2):326-336. PubMed ID: 29542855
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 77. A prospective study of a urine and plasma biomarker test for the prediction of gleason ≥3 + 4 prostate cancer in a mixed cohort.
    Poulsen MH; Feddersen S; Albitar M; Poulsen CA; Lund M; Pedersen TB; Mortensen MA; Lund L
    Scand J Urol; 2020 Aug; 54(4):323-327. PubMed ID: 32608296
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 78. Computed Tomography-based Radiomics for Risk Stratification in Prostate Cancer.
    Osman SOS; Leijenaar RTH; Cole AJ; Lyons CA; Hounsell AR; Prise KM; O'Sullivan JM; Lambin P; McGarry CK; Jain S
    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2019 Oct; 105(2):448-456. PubMed ID: 31254658
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 79. Live-cell phenotypic-biomarker microfluidic assay for the risk stratification of cancer patients via machine learning.
    Manak MS; Varsanik JS; Hogan BJ; Whitfield MJ; Su WR; Joshi N; Steinke N; Min A; Berger D; Saphirstein RJ; Dixit G; Meyyappan T; Chu HM; Knopf KB; Albala DM; Sant GR; Chander AC
    Nat Biomed Eng; 2018 Oct; 2(10):761-772. PubMed ID: 30854249
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 80. Discriminatory Gleason grade group signatures of prostate cancer: An application of machine learning methods.
    Mokoatle M; Mapiye D; Marivate V; Hayes VM; Bornman R
    PLoS One; 2022; 17(6):e0267714. PubMed ID: 35679280
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.