Prostate Adenocarcinoma Grade Group 1: Rationale for Retaining a Cancer Label in the 2022 World Health Organization Classification.
暂无分享,去创建一个
M. Rubin | D. Berney | J. Srigley | T. Tsuzuki | H. Moch | S. Tickoo | M. Amin | E. Compérat | G. Netto | I. Cree | A. Gill | S. Menon | M. Raspollini | S. Turajlic | A. Hartmann | Puay Hoon Tan
[1] Jeong Hwan Park,et al. Artificial intelligence system shows performance at the level of uropathologists for the detection and grading of prostate cancer in core needle biopsy: an independent external validation study , 2022, Modern Pathology.
[2] J. Epstein. Is Grade Group 1 (Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6) adenocarcinoma of the prostate really cancer? , 2021, Current opinion in urology.
[3] A. D'Amico,et al. NCCN Guidelines Insights: Prostate Cancer, Version 1.2021. , 2021, Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN.
[4] S. Eggener,et al. Should Grade Group 1 (GG1) be called cancer? , 2021, World Journal of Urology.
[5] Christina B. Ventura,et al. Molecular Biomarker Testing in Localized Prostate Cancer: The Critical Role of Pathologists. , 2020, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.
[6] J. Witjes,et al. Multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging should be preferred over digital rectal examination for prostate cancer local staging and disease risk classification. , 2020, Urology.
[7] Ximing J. Yang,et al. The 2019 Genitourinary Pathology Society (GUPS) White Paper on Contemporary Grading of Prostate Cancer. , 2020, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.
[8] G. Litjens,et al. The 2019 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma , 2020, The American journal of surgical pathology.
[9] A. Partin,et al. Utility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the risk stratification of men with Grade Group 1 prostate cancer on active surveillance , 2020, BJU international.
[10] K. Macura,et al. Active Surveillance of Grade Group 1 Prostate Cancer: Long-term Outcomes from a Large Prospective Cohort. , 2020, European urology.
[11] C. Almeras,et al. Performance of systematic, MRI-targeted biopsies alone or in combination for the prediction of unfavourable disease in MRI-positive low-risk prostate cancer patients eligible for active surveillance , 2019, World Journal of Urology.
[12] J. Epstein. Prostate cancer grading: a decade after the 2005 modified system , 2018, Modern Pathology.
[13] Mahul B Amin,et al. 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 , 2017, The American journal of surgical pathology.
[14] B. Delahunt,et al. 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 , 2015, The American journal of surgical pathology.
[15] Alan W Partin,et al. Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system , 2013, BJU international.
[16] Eric A Singer,et al. Gleason score 6 adenocarcinoma: should it be labeled as cancer? , 2012, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
[17] Hashim Uddin Ahmed,et al. Do low-grade and low-volume prostate cancers bear the hallmarks of malignancy? , 2012, The Lancet. Oncology.
[18] V. Moyer,et al. Screening for Prostate Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement , 2012, Annals of Internal Medicine.
[19] Bruce J Trock,et al. Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades. , 2012, European urology.
[20] G. Netto,et al. Emerging critical role of molecular testing in diagnostic genitourinary pathology. , 2012, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.
[21] J. Rosai. The benign versus malignant paradigm in oncologic pathology: a critique. , 2008, Seminars in diagnostic pathology.
[22] L. Egevad,et al. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma , 2005, The American journal of surgical pathology.
[23] G. Burnstock,et al. A comparative study of electrical field stimulation of the guinea-pig, ferret and marmoset urinary bladder. , 1985, European journal of pharmacology.