106 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3570055)
21. [Assessment of different histoprognosis grading systems for primary ovarian cancer: 100 patients given the same treatment for primary ovarian adenocarcinoma].
Penault-Llorca F; Levrel O; Clémenson A; Kwiatkowski F; Pomel C; Fouilhoux G; De Latour M; Curé H; Déchelotte P; Fonck Y; Dauplat J
J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris); 2000 Oct; 29(6):548-54. PubMed ID: 11084461
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. A binary architectural grading system for uterine endometrial endometrioid carcinoma has superior reproducibility compared with FIGO grading and identifies subsets of advance-stage tumors with favorable and unfavorable prognosis.
Lax SF; Kurman RJ; Pizer ES; Wu L; Ronnett BM
Am J Surg Pathol; 2000 Sep; 24(9):1201-8. PubMed ID: 10976693
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. [Histologic type and tumor maturity as prognostic factors in malignant epithelial tumors of the ovary].
Jukić S; Ilić J; Krstulović B; Krznar B; Culig V
Jugosl Ginekol Perinatol; 1989; 29(3-4):137-9. PubMed ID: 2601368
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Glycodelin in ovarian serous carcinoma: association with differentiation and survival.
Mandelin E; Lassus H; Seppälä M; Leminen A; Gustafsson JA; Cheng G; Bützow R; Koistinen R
Cancer Res; 2003 Oct; 63(19):6258-64. PubMed ID: 14559812
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Disagreement of histopathological diagnosis of different pathologists in ovarian tumors-with some theoretical considerations.
Baak JP; Lindeman J; Overdiep SH; Langley FA
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 1982 Feb; 13(1):51-5. PubMed ID: 7060817
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Testing of two binary grading systems for FIGO stage III serous carcinoma of the ovary and peritoneum.
Seidman JD; Horkayne-Szakaly I; Cosin JA; Ryu HS; Haiba M; Boice CR; Yemelyanova AV
Gynecol Oncol; 2006 Nov; 103(2):703-8. PubMed ID: 16828848
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Histologic and nuclear grading and stromal reactions as indices for prognosis in ovarian cancer.
Barber HR; Sommers SC; Synder R; Kwon TH
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1975 Mar; 121(6):795-807. PubMed ID: 1092171
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Histologic grading of invasive lobular carcinoma: does use of a 2-tiered nuclear grading system improve interobserver variability?
Adams AL; Chhieng DC; Bell WC; Winokur T; Hameed O
Ann Diagn Pathol; 2009 Aug; 13(4):223-5. PubMed ID: 19608079
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. [Surgical pathology of ovarian tumors].
Fujita M
Hokkaido Igaku Zasshi; 1995 Jan; 70(1):41-55. PubMed ID: 7744370
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Ovarian borderline tumors in the 2014 WHO classification: evolving concepts and diagnostic criteria.
Hauptmann S; Friedrich K; Redline R; Avril S
Virchows Arch; 2017 Feb; 470(2):125-142. PubMed ID: 28025670
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Reproducibility and prognostic variability of grade and lamina propria invasion in stages Ta, T1 urothelial carcinoma of the bladder.
Bol MG; Baak JP; Buhr-Wildhagen S; Kruse AJ; Kjellevold KH; Janssen EA; Mestad O; Øgreid P
J Urol; 2003 Apr; 169(4):1291-4. PubMed ID: 12629345
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. The histologic grading of cancer.
Carriaga MT; Henson DE
Cancer; 1995 Jan; 75(1 Suppl):406-21. PubMed ID: 8001011
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. American Joint Committee on Cancer and College of American Pathologists regression grade: a new prognostic factor in rectal cancer.
Mace AG; Pai RK; Stocchi L; Kalady MF
Dis Colon Rectum; 2015 Jan; 58(1):32-44. PubMed ID: 25489692
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Toward the development of a universal grading system for ovarian epithelial carcinoma: testing of a proposed system in a series of 461 patients with uniform treatment and follow-up.
Shimizu Y; Kamoi S; Amada S; Akiyama F; Silverberg SG
Cancer; 1998 Mar; 82(5):893-901. PubMed ID: 9486579
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. The prognostic significance of grading in borderline mucinous tumors of the ovary.
Sumithran E; Susil BJ; Looi LM
Hum Pathol; 1988 Jan; 19(1):15-8. PubMed ID: 2826326
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Prognostic importance of histologic grading in ovarian carcinoma.
Decker DG; Malkasian GD; Taylor WF
Natl Cancer Inst Monogr; 1975 Oct; 42():9-11. PubMed ID: 1234640
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Mucinous tumors of the ovary: interobserver diagnostic variability and utility of sectioning protocols.
Raab SS; Robinson RA; Jensen CS; Ozkutlu D; O'Reilly PO; Savell VH; Thomas PA
Arch Pathol Lab Med; 1997 Nov; 121(11):1192-8. PubMed ID: 9372748
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Intraobserver and interobserver variability of Fuhrman and modified Fuhrman grading systems for conventional renal cell carcinoma.
Bektas S; Bahadir B; Kandemir NO; Barut F; Gul AE; Ozdamar SO
Kaohsiung J Med Sci; 2009 Nov; 25(11):596-600. PubMed ID: 19858038
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Objective quantification of the Ki67 proliferative index in neuroendocrine tumors of the gastroenteropancreatic system: a comparison of digital image analysis with manual methods.
Tang LH; Gonen M; Hedvat C; Modlin IM; Klimstra DS
Am J Surg Pathol; 2012 Dec; 36(12):1761-70. PubMed ID: 23026928
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Mutant p53 protein overexpression is associated with poor outcome in patients with well or moderately differentiated ovarian carcinoma.
Levesque MA; Katsaros D; Yu H; Zola P; Sismondi P; Giardina G; Diamandis EP
Cancer; 1995 Mar; 75(6):1327-38. PubMed ID: 7882283
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
