35 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3969374)
21. Should the Gleason grading system for prostate cancer be modified to account for high-grade tertiary components? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Harnden P; Shelley MD; Coles B; Staffurth J; Mason MD
Lancet Oncol; 2007 May; 8(5):411-9. PubMed ID: 17466898
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Changes in prostate cancer grading: Including a new patient-centric grading system.
Kryvenko ON; Epstein JI
Prostate; 2016 Apr; 76(5):427-33. PubMed ID: 26709152
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Contemporary grading for prostate cancer: implications for patient care.
Brimo F; Montironi R; Egevad L; Erbersdobler A; Lin DW; Nelson JB; Rubin MA; van der Kwast T; Amin M; Epstein JI
Eur Urol; 2013 May; 63(5):892-901. PubMed ID: 23092544
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. The impact of the 2005 international society of urological pathology consensus conference on standard Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in needle biopsies.
Billis A; Guimaraes MS; Freitas LL; Meirelles L; Magna LA; Ferreira U
J Urol; 2008 Aug; 180(2):548-52; discussion 552-3. PubMed ID: 18550106
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Grading prostate cancer.
Bostwick DG
Am J Clin Pathol; 1994 Oct; 102(4 Suppl 1):S38-56. PubMed ID: 7524306
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. From Gleason to International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading of prostate cancer.
Samaratunga H; Delahunt B; Yaxley J; Srigley JR; Egevad L
Scand J Urol; 2016 Oct; 50(5):325-9. PubMed ID: 27415753
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Grading of prostatic cancer (I): An analysis of the prognostic significance of single characteristics.
Schroeder FH; Blom JH; Hop WC; Mostofi FK
Prostate; 1985; 6(1):81-100. PubMed ID: 3969374
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Histopathology of localized prostate cancer. Consensus Conference on Diagnosis and Prognostic Parameters in Localized Prostate Cancer. Stockholm, Sweden, May 12-13, 1993.
Murphy GP; Busch C; Abrahamsson PA; Epstein JI; McNeal JE; Miller GJ; Mostofi FK; Nagle RB; Nordling S; Parkinson C
Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl; 1994; 162():7-42; discussion 115-27. PubMed ID: 7817162
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Objective malignancy grading: a review emphasizing unbiased stereology applied to breast tumors.
Ladekarl M
APMIS Suppl; 1998; 79():1-34. PubMed ID: 9645191
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System.
Epstein JI; Egevad L; Amin MB; Delahunt B; Srigley JR; Humphrey PA;
Am J Surg Pathol; 2016 Feb; 40(2):244-52. PubMed ID: 26492179
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. 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]
32. Reproducibility and reliability of tumor grading in urological neoplasms.
Engers R
World J Urol; 2007 Dec; 25(6):595-605. PubMed ID: 17828603
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [New Search]
