113 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8112954)
1. The prognostic value of nuclear versus architectural grading in endometrial adenocarcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study.
Zaino RJ; Silverberg SG; Norris HJ; Bundy BN; Morrow CP; Okagaki T
Int J Gynecol Pathol; 1994 Jan; 13(1):29-36. PubMed ID: 8112954
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The utility of the revised International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics histologic grading of endometrial adenocarcinoma using a defined nuclear grading system. A Gynecologic Oncology Group study.
Zaino RJ; Kurman RJ; Diana KL; Morrow CP
Cancer; 1995 Jan; 75(1):81-6. PubMed ID: 7804981
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Description of a novel system for grading of endometrial carcinoma and comparison with existing grading systems.
Alkushi A; Abdul-Rahman ZH; Lim P; Schulzer M; Coldman A; Kalloger SE; Miller D; Gilks CB
Am J Surg Pathol; 2005 Mar; 29(3):295-304. PubMed ID: 15725797
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Architectural versus nuclear atypia-defined FIGO grade 2 endometrial endometrioid adenocarcinoma (EEC): a clinicopathologic comparison of 154 cases with clinical follow-up.
Winham WM; Lin D; Stone PJ; Nucci MR; Quick CM
Int J Gynecol Pathol; 2014 Mar; 33(2):120-6. PubMed ID: 24487465
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The prognostic value of nuclear grading and the revised FIGO grading of endometrial adenocarcinoma.
Ayhan A; Taskiran C; Yuce K; Kucukali T
Int J Gynecol Pathol; 2003 Jan; 22(1):71-4. PubMed ID: 12496701
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Evaluation of the reproducibility of the revised 1988 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics grading system of endometrial cancers with special emphasis on nuclear grading.
Nielsen AL; Thomsen HK; Nyholm HC
Cancer; 1991 Nov; 68(10):2303-9. PubMed ID: 1913466
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The prognostic value of semiquantitative nuclear grading in endometrial carcinomas.
Hachisuga T; Kawarabayashi T; Iwasaka T; Sugimori H; Kamura T; Tsuneyoshi M
Gynecol Oncol; 1997 Apr; 65(1):115-20. PubMed ID: 9103400
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Prognostic validity of neoplastic cells with notable nuclear atypia in endometrial cancer.
Takeshima N; Hirai Y; Hasumi K
Obstet Gynecol; 1998 Jul; 92(1):119-23. PubMed ID: 9649106
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Prognostic significance and interobserver variability of histologic grading systems for endometrial carcinoma.
Scholten AN; Smit VT; Beerman H; van Putten WL; Creutzberg CL
Cancer; 2004 Feb; 100(4):764-72. PubMed ID: 14770433
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A comparison of three histological grading systems in endometrial cancer.
Bilgin T; Ozuysal S; Ozan H
Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2005 Jun; 272(1):23-5. PubMed ID: 15241614
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Architectural (FIGO) grading, nuclear grading, and other prognostic indicators in stage I endometrial adenocarcinoma with identification of high-risk and low-risk groups.
Mittal KR; Schwartz PE; Barwick KW
Cancer; 1988 Feb; 61(3):538-45. PubMed ID: 3338021
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Standardized AgNOR analysis as a prognostic parameter in endometrial carcinoma, endometrioid type.
Giuffrè G; Fulcheri E; Gualco M; Fedele F; Tuccari G
Anal Quant Cytol Histol; 2001 Feb; 23(1):31-9. PubMed ID: 11233741
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Role of DNA ploidy analysis in endometrial adenocarcinoma.
Jhala DN; Atkinson BF; Balsara GR; Hernandez E; Jhala NC
Ann Diagn Pathol; 2001 Oct; 5(5):267-73. PubMed ID: 11598854
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The reproducibility of a binary tumor grading system for uterine endometrial endometrioid carcinoma, compared with FIGO system and nuclear grading.
Sagae S; Saito T; Satoh M; Ikeda T; Kimura S; Mori M; Sato N; Kudo R
Oncology; 2004; 67(5-6):344-50. PubMed ID: 15713989
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Reproducibility of grading systems for endometrial endometrioid carcinoma and their relation with pathologic prognostic parameters.
Kapucuoglu N; Bulbul D; Tulunay G; Temel MA
Int J Gynecol Cancer; 2008; 18(4):790-6. PubMed ID: 17892460
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Morphometric analysis of endometrial adenocarcinoma: 2. A comparison of architectural differentiation determined morphometrically with subjective grading.
Zaino RJ; Laskaris A; Whitney C; Sharkey FE
Int J Gynecol Pathol; 1987; 6(1):20-8. PubMed ID: 3570629
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Risk factor analysis of recurrence in low-grade endometrial adenocarcinoma.
Roma AA; Rybicki LA; Barbuto D; Euscher E; Djordjevic B; Frauenhoffer E; Kim I; Hong SR; Montiel D; Ali-Fehmi R; Malpica A; Silva EG
Hum Pathol; 2015 Oct; 46(10):1529-39. PubMed ID: 26264257
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Relationships of nuclear, architectural and International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics grading systems in endometrial cancer.
Toptaş T; Peştereli E; Bozkurt S; Erdoğan G; Şimşek T
J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc; 2018 Mar; 19(1):17-22. PubMed ID: 29072178
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Validation of the histologic grading for ovarian clear cell adenocarcinoma: a retrospective multi-institutional study by the Japan Clear Cell Carcinoma Study Group.
Yamamoto S; Kasajima A; Takano M; Yaegashi N; Fujiwara H; Kuzuya K; Kigawa J; Tsuda H; Kurachi H; Kikuchi Y; Sugiyama T; Tsuda H; Moriya T
Int J Gynecol Pathol; 2011 Mar; 30(2):129-38. PubMed ID: 21293288
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
