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 *

109 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34825460)

  • 1. A nationwide trend away from radical prostatectomy for Gleason Grade Group 1 prostate cancer.
    John JB; Pascoe J; Fowler S; Walton T; Johnson M; Challacombe B; Dickinson AJ; Aning J; McGrath JS
    BJU Int; 2022 Mar; 129(3):311-314. PubMed ID: 34825460
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Prostate-specific antigen level, stage or Gleason score: which is best for predicting outcomes after radical prostatectomy, and does it vary by the outcome being measured? Results from Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital database.
    Mithal P; Howard LE; Aronson WJ; Kane CJ; Cooperberg MR; Terris MK; Amling CL; Freedland SJ
    Int J Urol; 2015 Apr; 22(4):362-6. PubMed ID: 25728968
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The Impact of Downgrading from Biopsy Gleason 7 to Prostatectomy Gleason 6 on Biochemical Recurrence and Prostate Cancer Specific Mortality.
    Ham WS; Chalfin HJ; Feng Z; Trock BJ; Epstein JI; Cheung C; Humphreys E; Partin AW; Han M
    J Urol; 2017 Apr; 197(4):1060-1067. PubMed ID: 27847296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Evaluation of the 2015 Gleason Grade Groups in a Nationwide Population-based Cohort.
    Loeb S; Folkvaljon Y; Robinson D; Lissbrant IF; Egevad L; Stattin P
    Eur Urol; 2016 Jun; 69(6):1135-41. PubMed ID: 26707871
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Clinical Utility of Quantitative Gleason Grading in Prostate Biopsies and Prostatectomy Specimens.
    Sauter G; Steurer S; Clauditz TS; Krech T; Wittmer C; Lutz F; Lennartz M; Janssen T; Hakimi N; Simon R; von Petersdorff-Campen M; Jacobsen F; von Loga K; Wilczak W; Minner S; Tsourlakis MC; Chirico V; Haese A; Heinzer H; Beyer B; Graefen M; Michl U; Salomon G; Steuber T; Budäus LH; Hekeler E; Malsy-Mink J; Kutzera S; Fraune C; Göbel C; Huland H; Schlomm T
    Eur Urol; 2016 Apr; 69(4):592-598. PubMed ID: 26542947
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Low prostate-specific antigen and no Gleason score upgrade despite more extensive cancer during active surveillance predicts insignificant prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy.
    Han JS; Toll AD; Amin A; Carter HB; Landis P; Lee S; Epstein JI
    Urology; 2012 Oct; 80(4):883-8. PubMed ID: 22921697
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The Ability of Prostate Health Index (PHI) to Predict Gleason Score in Patients With Prostate Cancer and Discriminate Patients Between Gleason Score 6 and Gleason Score Higher Than 6-A Study on 320 Patients After Radical Prostatectomy.
    Dolejsova O; Kucera R; Fuchsova R; Topolcan O; Svobodova H; Hes O; Eret V; Pecen L; Hora M
    Technol Cancer Res Treat; 2018 Jan; 17():1533033818787377. PubMed ID: 30021484
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. New prostate cancer grade grouping system predicts survival after radical prostatectomy.
    Erickson A; Sandeman K; Lahdensuo K; Nordling S; Kallajoki M; Seikkula H; Bützow A; Vasarainen H; Boström PJ; Taimen P; Rannikko A; Mirtti T
    Hum Pathol; 2018 May; 75():159-166. PubMed ID: 29447924
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Lack of association of prostate carcinoma nuclear grading with prostate specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy.
    Zhou M; Hayasaka S; Taylor JM; Shah R; Proverbs-Singh T; Manley S; Rubin MA
    J Urol; 2001 Dec; 166(6):2193-7. PubMed ID: 11696734
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Should we replace the Gleason score with the amount of high-grade prostate cancer?
    Vis AN; Roemeling S; Kranse R; Schröder FH; van der Kwast TH
    Eur Urol; 2007 Apr; 51(4):931-9. PubMed ID: 16935413
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. [Risk factors of ISUP Modified Gleason score upgrading after radical prostatectomy].
    Li XD; Qu GY; Xu N; Xue XY; Wei Y; Zheng QS; Li JF; Cai H; Lin YZ
    Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue; 2016 May; 22(5):415-9. PubMed ID: 27416665
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Re: Prognostic Significance of Percentage and Architectural Types of Contemporary Gleason Pattern 4 Prostate Cancer in Radical Prostatectomy.
    Villers A; Rubin MA
    Eur Urol; 2017 Feb; 71(2):301. PubMed ID: 27687819
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Benefits and harms of the new prostate cancer grade grouping on the prediction of long-term oncological outcomes in patients after radical prostatectomy.
    Milonas D; Muilwijk T; Venclovas Z; Devos G; Joniau S
    Int J Urol; 2021 Apr; 28(4):390-395. PubMed ID: 33406542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Trend of Adverse Stage Migration in Patients Treated with Radical Prostatectomy for Localized Prostate Cancer.
    Preisser F; Marchioni M; Nazzani S; Bandini M; Tian Z; Saad F; Pompe RS; Briganti A; Budäus L; Montorsi F; Huland H; Graefen M; Tilki D; Karakiewicz PI
    Eur Urol Oncol; 2018 Jun; 1(2):160-168. PubMed ID: 31100241
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Older Age Predicts Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Grade Reclassification to Aggressive Prostate Cancer in Men on Active Surveillance.
    Druskin SC; Mamawala M; Tosoian JJ; Epstein JI; Pavlovich CP; Carter HB; Trock BJ
    J Urol; 2019 Jan; 201(1):98-104. PubMed ID: 30114397
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Primary Gleason grade 4 at the positive margin is associated with metastasis and death among patients with Gleason 7 prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy.
    Viers BR; Sukov WR; Gettman MT; Rangel LJ; Bergstralh EJ; Frank I; Tollefson MK; Thompson RH; Boorjian SA; Karnes RJ
    Eur Urol; 2014 Dec; 66(6):1116-24. PubMed ID: 25052213
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Comparison of Pathological and Oncologic Outcomes of Favorable Risk Gleason Score 3 + 4 and Low Risk Gleason Score 6 Prostate Cancer: Considerations for Active Surveillance.
    Gearman DJ; Morlacco A; Cheville JC; Rangel LJ; Karnes RJ
    J Urol; 2018 May; 199(5):1188-1195. PubMed ID: 29225057
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Preoperative characteristics of high-Gleason disease predictive of favourable pathological and clinical outcomes at radical prostatectomy.
    Pierorazio PM; Ross AE; Lin BM; Epstein JI; Han M; Walsh PC; Partin AW; Pavlovich CP; Schaeffer EM
    BJU Int; 2012 Oct; 110(8):1122-8. PubMed ID: 22373045
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.