131 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38109699)
1. Risk of Biochemical Recurrence in Patients With Grade Group 1 Prostate Cancer With Extraprostatic Extension Treated With Radical Prostatectomy.
Rezaee ME; Pallauf M; Fletcher SA; Han M; Pavlovich CP; Cornelia Ding CK; Epstein JI; Allaf ME; Trock BJ; Singla N
J Urol; 2024 Mar; 211(3):407-414. PubMed ID: 38109699
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Clinical outcome comparison of Grade Group 1 and Grade Group 2 prostate cancer with and without cribriform architecture at the time of radical prostatectomy.
Hollemans E; Verhoef EI; Bangma CH; Rietbergen J; Roobol MJ; Helleman J; van Leenders GJLH
Histopathology; 2020 Apr; 76(5):755-762. PubMed ID: 31944367
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. How Much Reliable Is the Current Belief on Grade Group 1 Prostate Cancer?
Chung MS; Choi YJ; Lee YS; Yoon BI; Ha US
Pathol Oncol Res; 2021; 27():629489. PubMed ID: 34257593
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Evaluating the Outcomes of Active Surveillance in Grade Group 2 Prostate Cancer: Prospective Results from the Canary PASS Cohort.
Waisman Malaret AJ; Chang P; Zhu K; Zheng Y; Newcomb LF; Liu M; McKenney JK; Brooks JD; Carroll P; Dash A; Filson CP; Gleave ME; Liss M; Martin FM; Morgan TM; Nelson PS; Lin DW; Wagner AA
J Urol; 2022 Apr; 207(4):805-813. PubMed ID: 34854745
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Percentage of Gleason pattern 4 and tumor volume predict adverse pathological stage and margin status at radical prostatectomy in grade Group 2 and grade Group 3 prostate cancers.
Iakymenko OA; Lugo I; Briski LM; Nemov I; Punnen S; Kwon D; Pollack A; Stoyanova R; Parekh DJ; Jorda M; Gonzalgo ML; Kryvenko ON
Prostate; 2021 Sep; 81(12):866-873. PubMed ID: 34184782
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The relationship between the extent of extraprostatic extension and survival following radical prostatectomy.
Jeong BC; Chalfin HJ; Lee SB; Feng Z; Epstein JI; Trock BJ; Partin AW; Humphreys E; Walsh PC; Han M
Eur Urol; 2015 Feb; 67(2):342-6. PubMed ID: 24968968
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Evaluating the Safety of Active Surveillance: Outcomes of Deferred Radical Prostatectomy after an Initial Period of Surveillance.
Balakrishnan AS; Cowan JE; Cooperberg MR; Shinohara K; Nguyen HG; Carroll PR
J Urol; 2019 Sep; 202(3):506-510. PubMed ID: 30958738
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of MRI-Based Staging and Pathologic Staging for Predicting Biochemical Recurrence of Prostate Cancer After Radical Prostatectomy.
Merriman KM; Harmon SA; Belue MJ; Yilmaz EC; Blake Z; Lay NS; Phelps TE; Merino MJ; Parnes HL; Law YM; Gurram S; Wood BJ; Choyke PL; Pinto PA; Turkbey B
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2023 Dec; 221(6):773-787. PubMed ID: 37404084
[No 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. 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]
11. Determining the cut-off values of tumor diameter, degree of extraprostatic extension, and extent of surgical margin positivity with regard to biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy.
Kir G; Arikan EA; Seneldir H; Ankarali H; Oznergiz S; Olgun ZC; Yildirim A
Ann Diagn Pathol; 2020 Feb; 44():151431. PubMed ID: 31837592
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Extent of extraprostatic extension independently influences biochemical recurrence-free survival: evidence for further pT3 subclassification.
Ball MW; Partin AW; Epstein JI
Urology; 2015 Jan; 85(1):161-4. PubMed ID: 25440818
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Outcomes of Grade Group 2 and 3 Prostate Cancer on Initial Versus Confirmatory Biopsy: Implications for Active Surveillance.
Perera M; Jibara G; Tin AL; Haywood S; Sjoberg DD; Benfante NE; Carlsson SV; Eastham JA; Laudone V; Touijer KA; Fine S; Scardino PT; Vickers AJ; Ehdaie B
Eur Urol Focus; 2023 Jul; 9(4):662-668. PubMed ID: 36566100
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Nomogram Predicting Prostate Cancer-specific Mortality for Men with Biochemical Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy.
Brockman JA; Alanee S; Vickers AJ; Scardino PT; Wood DP; Kibel AS; Lin DW; Bianco FJ; Rabah DM; Klein EA; Ciezki JP; Gao T; Kattan MW; Stephenson AJ
Eur Urol; 2015 Jun; 67(6):1160-1167. PubMed ID: 25301759
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Grade group 2 (10% ≥ GP4) patients have very similar malignant potential with grade group 1 patients, given the risk of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate.
Kato M; Hirakawa A; Sato H; Hanazawa R; Naito Y; Tochigi K; Sano T; Ishida S; Funahashi Y; Fujita T; Matsukawa Y; Hattori R; Tsuzuki T
Int J Clin Oncol; 2021 Apr; 26(4):764-769. PubMed ID: 33385274
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Significance of extraprostatic extension by Grade Groups 1-3 prostatic carcinoma on needle biopsy.
Zhao J; Epstein J
Prostate; 2023 Jun; 83(8):809-813. PubMed ID: 36946608
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Weighted Gleason Grade Group (WGGG): A new prostate cancer biopsy reporting system with prognostic potential.
Waingankar N; Martini A; Griffiths L; Shah P; Paulucci DJ; Kotamarti S; Gul Z; Elmasri M; Yaskiv O; Haines K; Lerner S; Vira M; Kavoussi LR; Tewari AK; Kapoor DA; Olsson CA
Urol Oncol; 2020 Mar; 38(3):78.e15-78.e21. PubMed ID: 31796374
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Tertiary Gleason pattern in radical prostatectomy specimens is associated with worse outcomes than the next higher Gleason score group in localized prostate cancer.
Özsoy M; D'Andrea D; Moschini M; Foerster B; Abufaraj M; Mathieu R; Briganti A; Karakiewicz PI; Roupret M; Seitz C; Czech AK; Susani M; Shariat SF
Urol Oncol; 2018 Apr; 36(4):158.e1-158.e6. PubMed ID: 29288003
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Is Grade Group 1 (Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6) adenocarcinoma of the prostate really cancer?
Epstein JI
Curr Opin Urol; 2022 Jan; 32(1):91-95. PubMed ID: 34783714
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
