Use of nuclear morphometry, gleason histologic scoring, clinical stage, and age to predict disease‐free survival among patients with prostate cancer

Background. Currently, there are no accurate methods for predicting metastases or time to disease progression for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer after surgery.

[1]  P. Walsh,et al.  Management of stage D1 adenocarcinoma of the prostate: the Johns Hopkins experience 1974 to 1987. , 1990, The Journal of urology.

[2]  D. S. Coffey,et al.  The prostate: An increasing medical problem , 1990, The Prostate.

[3]  A W Partin,et al.  A comparison of nuclear morphometry and Gleason grade as a predictor of prognosis in stage A2 prostate cancer: a critical analysis. , 1989, The Journal of urology.

[4]  P. Walsh,et al.  Pathological stage is higher in older men with clinical stage B1 adenocarcinoma of the prostate. , 1989, The Journal of urology.

[5]  P. Narayan,et al.  A comparison of fine needle aspiration and core biopsy in diagnosis and preoperative grading of prostate cancer. , 1989, The Journal of urology.

[6]  A. Partin,et al.  Morphometric measurement of tumor volume and per cent of gland involvement as predictors of pathological stage in clinical stage B prostate cancer. , 1989, The Journal of urology.

[7]  J. Oesterling,et al.  Tumor volume versus percentage of specimen involved by tumor correlated with progression in stage A prostatic cancer. , 1988, The Journal of urology.

[8]  A W Partin,et al.  Nuclear roundness factor measurement for assessment of prognosis of patients with prostatic carcinoma. I. Testing of a digitization system. , 1988, The Journal of urology.

[9]  A W Partin,et al.  Nuclear roundness factor measurement for assessment of prognosis of patients with prostatic carcinoma. II. Standardization of methodology for histologic sections. , 1988, The Journal of urology.

[10]  C. R. Bagnell,et al.  Nuclear roundness factor: A quantitative approach to grading in prostatic carcinoma, reliability of needle biopsy tissue, and the effect of tumor stage on usefulness , 1987, The Prostate.

[11]  D. Paulson,et al.  Radical prostatectomy: anatomical predictors of success or failure. , 1986, The Journal of urology.

[12]  T. Stamey,et al.  PATTERNS OF PROGRESSION IN PROSTATE CANCER , 1986, The Lancet.

[13]  J. Epstein,et al.  Nuclear roundness factor. A predictor of progression in untreated stage A2 prostate cancer , 1984, Cancer.

[14]  J. Epstein,et al.  Squamous carcinoma of the foot arising in association with long‐standing verrucous hyperplasia in a patient with congenital lymphedema , 1984, Cancer.

[15]  J C Eggleston,et al.  A new method to assess metastatic potential of human prostate cancer: relative nuclear roundness. , 1982, The Journal of urology.

[16]  D. S. Coffey,et al.  Computerized image analysis of nuclear shape as a prognostic factor for prostatic cancer , 1982, The Prostate.

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

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

[19]  D. Cox.  Regression Models and Life-Tables , 1972 .

[20]  D. F. Morrison,et al.  Multivariate Statistical Methods , 1968 .

[21]  W. Haenszel,et al.  Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. , 1959, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[22]  E. Kaplan,et al.  Nonparametric Estimation from Incomplete Observations , 1958 .