Diagnostic decision support for prostate lesions.

The diagnostic evaluation of premalignant and malignant lesions of the prostate may benefit from the application of an inference network. Used as a diagnostic decision support system, an inference network provides standardized assessment of diagnostic clues which is supported by computer graphics and comparison imagery, uncertainty management by possibility and probabilistic schemes and the systematic combination of different pieces of diagnostic evidence. This assessment results in a numeric measure of belief in the final diagnosis.

[1]  D E Johnson,et al.  Histologic grading study of prostate adenocarcinoma: The development of a new system and comparison with other methods—A preliminary study , 1982, Cancer.

[2]  F. H. Schroeder,et al.  Grading of prostatic cancer: II. The prognostic significance of the presence of multiple architectural patterns , 1986, The Prostate.

[3]  W C Hop,et al.  Grading of prostatic cancer (I): An analysis of the prognostic significance of single characteristics , 1985, The Prostate.

[4]  Alfred Böcking,et al.  Combined histologic grading of prostatic carcinoma , 1982, Cancer.

[5]  H Svanholm,et al.  Prostatic carcinoma reproducibility of histologic grading. , 1985, Acta pathologica, microbiologica, et immunologica Scandinavica. Section A, Pathology.

[6]  F. Mostofi,et al.  Pathology of carcinoma of the prostate , 1992, Cancer.

[7]  P H Bartels,et al.  Belief network for grading prostate lesions. , 1993, Analytical and quantitative cytology and histology.

[8]  W. A. Gardner,et al.  A uniform histopathologic grading system for prostate cancer. Subcommittee on Diagnostic Nomenclature, Prostate Cancer Working Group, Organ Systems Program. , 1988, Human pathology.

[9]  G. Murphy,et al.  Histologic grading of primary prostatic cancer: a new approach to an old problem. , 1980, The Journal of urology.

[10]  P G Mulder,et al.  Histological grading of prostatic carcinoma in prostatectomy specimens. Comparison of prognostic accuracy of five grading systems. , 1990, British journal of urology.

[11]  P H Bartels,et al.  Bayesian belief networks in quantitative histopathology. , 1992, Analytical and quantitative cytology and histology.

[12]  Gleason Df.  Classification of prostatic carcinomas. , 1966 .

[13]  F. Mostofi,et al.  Problems of grading carcinoma of prostate. , 1976, Seminars in oncology.

[14]  W. Hop,et al.  Grading of prostatic cancer: III. Multivariate analysis of prognostic parameters , 1985, The Prostate.

[15]  D G McGowan,et al.  Evaluation of histological grading (Gleason) in carcinoma of the prostate: Adverse influence of highest grade , 1983, The Prostate.

[16]  P H Bartels,et al.  Expert systems in histopathology. IV. The management of uncertainty. , 1992, Analytical and quantitative cytology and histology.

[17]  F. Mostofi,et al.  Grading of prostatic carcinoma. , 1975, Cancer chemotherapy reports.

[18]  M Scarpelli,et al.  Prostatic Intra-epithelial Neoplasia: Qualitative and Quantitative Analyses of the Blood Capillary Architecture on Thin Tissue Sections , 1993 .

[19]  W. Gardner,et al.  Histologic grading of prostate cancer: A retrospective and prospective overview , 1982, The Prostate.

[20]  D. Bostwick,et al.  Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN). , 1989, Urology.