146 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35243396)
1. Association Between a 22-feature Genomic Classifier and Biopsy Gleason Upgrade During Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer.
Press BH; Jones T; Olawoyin O; Lokeshwar SD; Rahman SN; Khajir G; Lin DW; Cooperberg MR; Loeb S; Darst BF; Zheng Y; Chen RC; Witte JS; Seibert TM; Catalona WJ; Leapman MS; Sprenkle PC
Eur Urol Open Sci; 2022 Mar; 37():113-119. PubMed ID: 35243396
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Prostate Cancer Genomic Classifier Relates More Strongly to Gleason Grade Group Than Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Score in Multiparametric Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging-ultrasound Fusion Targeted Biopsies.
Martin DT; Ghabili K; Levi A; Humphrey PA; Sprenkle PC
Urology; 2019 Mar; 125():64-72. PubMed ID: 30552940
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Prostate Cancer Tumor Volume and Genomic Risk.
Ramaswamy A; Proudfoot JA; Ross AE; Davicioni E; Schaeffer EM; Hu JC
Eur Urol Open Sci; 2023 Feb; 48():90-97. PubMed ID: 36743402
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Combined value of validated clinical and genomic risk stratification tools for predicting prostate cancer mortality in a high-risk prostatectomy cohort.
Cooperberg MR; Davicioni E; Crisan A; Jenkins RB; Ghadessi M; Karnes RJ
Eur Urol; 2015 Feb; 67(2):326-33. PubMed ID: 24998118
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Clinical-genomic Characterization Unveils More Aggressive Disease Features in Elderly Prostate Cancer Patients with Low-grade Disease.
Goldberg H; Spratt D; Chandrasekar T; Klaassen Z; Wallis CJD; Santiago-Jimenez M; Fishbane N; Davicioni E; Noorani R; Ahmad AE; Herrera Cáceres JO; Alibhai S; Berlin A; Fleshner NE
Eur Urol Focus; 2021 Jul; 7(4):797-806. PubMed ID: 32156491
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Risk of Upgrading and Upstaging Among 10 000 Patients with Gleason 3+4 Favorable Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer.
Yang DD; Mahal BA; Muralidhar V; Nezolosky MD; Vastola ME; Labe SA; Boldbaatar N; King MT; Martin NE; Orio PF; Beard CJ; Hoffman KE; Trinh QD; Spratt DE; Feng FY; Nguyen PL
Eur Urol Focus; 2019 Jan; 5(1):69-76. PubMed ID: 28753811
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Tissue-based Genomics Augments Post-prostatectomy Risk Stratification in a Natural History Cohort of Intermediate- and High-Risk Men.
Ross AE; Johnson MH; Yousefi K; Davicioni E; Netto GJ; Marchionni L; Fedor HL; Glavaris S; Choeurng V; Buerki C; Erho N; Lam LL; Humphreys EB; Faraj S; Bezerra SM; Han M; Partin AW; Trock BJ; Schaeffer EM
Eur Urol; 2016 Jan; 69(1):157-65. PubMed ID: 26058959
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A genomic classifier improves prediction of metastatic disease within 5 years after surgery in node-negative high-risk prostate cancer patients managed by radical prostatectomy without adjuvant therapy.
Klein EA; Yousefi K; Haddad Z; Choeurng V; Buerki C; Stephenson AJ; Li J; Kattan MW; Magi-Galluzzi C; Davicioni E
Eur Urol; 2015 Apr; 67(4):778-86. PubMed ID: 25466945
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Prediction of Pathological Upgrading at Radical Prostatectomy in Prostate Cancer Eligible for Active Surveillance: A Texture Features and Machine Learning-Based Analysis of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Maps.
Xie J; Li B; Min X; Zhang P; Fan C; Li Q; Wang L
Front Oncol; 2020; 10():604266. PubMed ID: 33614487
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Ability of a Genomic Classifier to Predict Metastasis and Prostate Cancer-specific Mortality after Radiation or Surgery based on Needle Biopsy Specimens.
Nguyen PL; Haddad Z; Ross AE; Martin NE; Deheshi S; Lam LLC; Chelliserry J; Tosoian JJ; Lotan TL; Spratt DE; Stoyanova RS; Punnen S; Ong K; Buerki C; Aranes M; Kolisnik T; Margrave J; Yousefi K; Choeurng V; Davicioni E; Trock BJ; Kane CJ; Pollack A; Davis JW; Feng FY; Klein EA
Eur Urol; 2017 Nov; 72(5):845-852. PubMed ID: 28528811
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy During Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance.
Tran GN; Leapman MS; Nguyen HG; Cowan JE; Shinohara K; Westphalen AC; Carroll PR
Eur Urol; 2017 Aug; 72(2):275-281. PubMed ID: 27595378
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Role of Changes in Magnetic Resonance Imaging or Clinical Stage in Evaluation of Disease Progression for Men with Prostate Cancer on Active Surveillance.
Chesnut GT; Vertosick EA; Benfante N; Sjoberg DD; Fainberg J; Lee T; Eastham J; Laudone V; Scardino P; Touijer K; Vickers A; Ehdaie B
Eur Urol; 2020 Apr; 77(4):501-507. PubMed ID: 31874726
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Use of the Decipher genomic classifier among men with prostate cancer in the United States.
Zaorsky NG; Proudfoot JA; Jia AY; Zuhour R; Vince R; Liu Y; Zhao X; Hu J; Schussler NC; Stevens JL; Bentler S; Cress RD; Doherty JA; Durbin EB; Gershman S; Cheng I; Gonsalves L; Hernandez BY; Liu L; Morawski BM; Schymura M; Schwartz SM; Ward KC; Wiggins C; Wu XC; Shoag JE; Ponsky L; Dal Pra A; Schaeffer EM; Ross AE; Sun Y; Davicioni E; Petkov V; Spratt DE
JNCI Cancer Spectr; 2023 Aug; 7(5):. PubMed ID: 37525535
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Morphologic patterns observed in prostate biopsy cases with discrepant grade group and molecular risk classification.
Greenland NY; Cooperberg MR; Carroll PR; Cowan JE; Simko JP; Stohr BA; Chan E
Prostate; 2024 May; ():. PubMed ID: 38734990
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. Prediction of the Pathologic Gleason Score to Inform a Personalized Management Program for Prostate Cancer.
Coley RY; Zeger SL; Mamawala M; Pienta KJ; Carter HB
Eur Urol; 2017 Jul; 72(1):135-141. PubMed ID: 27523594
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Evaluating the Four Kallikrein Panel of the 4Kscore for Prediction of High-grade Prostate Cancer in Men in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study.
Lin DW; Newcomb LF; Brown MD; Sjoberg DD; Dong Y; Brooks JD; Carroll PR; Cooperberg M; Dash A; Ellis WJ; Fabrizio M; Gleave ME; Morgan TM; Nelson PS; Thompson IM; Wagner AA; Zheng Y;
Eur Urol; 2017 Sep; 72(3):448-454. PubMed ID: 27889277
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
