Gleason score 6 adenocarcinoma: should it be labeled as cancer?
暂无分享,去创建一个
Eric A Singer | Robert W Veltri | Alan W Partin | Bruce J Trock | H Ballentine Carter | B. Trock | A. Partin | P. Walsh | D. S. Coffey | J. Epstein | H. Carter | W. Nelson | R. Veltri | Patrick C Walsh | William G Nelson | Jonathan I Epstein | Donald S Coffey | E. Singer
[1] J. Epstein,et al. Change in prostate cancer grade over time in men followed expectantly for stage T1c disease. , 2008, The Journal of urology.
[2] Matthew R Cooperberg,et al. Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. , 2010, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
[3] P. Corso,et al. National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference: Role of Active Surveillance in the Management of Men With Localized Prostate Cancer , 2012, Annals of Internal Medicine.
[4] M. Terris,et al. Risk stratification of men with Gleason score 7 to 10 tumors by primary and secondary Gleason score: results from the SEARCH database. , 2007, Urology.
[5] 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.
[6] H. Sandler,et al. Gleason pattern 5 is the greatest risk factor for clinical failure and death from prostate cancer after dose-escalated radiation therapy and hormonal ablation. , 2011, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.
[7] 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.
[8] M. Roobol,et al. Radical prostatectomy for low-risk prostate cancer following initial active surveillance: results from a prospective observational study. , 2012, European urology.
[9] B. Chabner,et al. Call it cancer. , 2012, The oncologist.
[10] M. Speakman,et al. SHOULD WE REALLY CONSIDER GLEASON 6 PROSTATE CANCER? , 2012, BJU international.
[11] T. Wilt,et al. The Prostate cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial:VA/NCI/AHRQ Cooperative Studies Program #407 (PIVOT): design and baseline results of a randomized controlled trial comparing radical prostatectomy to watchful waiting for men with clinically localized prostate cancer. , 2009, Contemporary clinical trials.
[12] D. Kirk,et al. Legal pitfalls in the diagnosis of prostate cancer , 2000, BJU international.
[13] T. Gomes,et al. National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference: role of active surveillance in the management of men with localized prostate cancer. , 2012 .
[14] Pär Stattin,et al. Outcomes in Localized Prostate Cancer: National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden Follow-up Study , 2010, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
[15] D. Dearnaley,et al. A model of the natural history of screen-detected prostate cancer, and the effect of radical treatment on overall survival , 2006, British Journal of Cancer.
[16] M. Jordá,et al. Pathologic prostate cancer characteristics in patients eligible for active surveillance: a head-to-head comparison of contemporary protocols. , 2012, European urology.
[17] Chin-Lee Wu,et al. Impact on the Clinical Outcome of Prostate Cancer by the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology Modified Gleason Grading System , 2012, The American journal of surgical pathology.
[18] Misop Han,et al. Predicting 15-year prostate cancer specific mortality after radical prostatectomy. , 2011, The Journal of urology.
[19] Hans Garmo,et al. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.
[20] J. Epstein,et al. Gleason score 2-4 adenocarcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: a diagnosis that should not be made. , 2000, The American journal of surgical pathology.
[21] Alan W Partin,et al. Gleason score 7 prostate cancer on needle biopsy: is the prognostic difference in Gleason scores 4 + 3 and 3 + 4 independent of the number of involved cores? , 2002, The Journal of urology.
[22] G. Netto,et al. Emerging critical role of molecular testing in diagnostic genitourinary pathology. , 2012, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.
[23] Pierre Mongiat-Artus,et al. Prostate Cancer and the Will Rogers Phenomenon , 2006 .
[24] J. Epstein,et al. A pathological reassessment of organ-confined, Gleason score 6 prostatic adenocarcinomas that progress after radical prostatectomy. , 2009, Human pathology.
[25] D. Penson,et al. Trends in the treatment of localized prostate cancer using supplemented cancer registry data , 2011, BJU international.
[26] C. Gross,et al. The relationship between clinical benefit and receipt of curative therapy for prostate cancer. , 2012, Archives of internal medicine.
[27] J. Mohler. The 2010 NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology on prostate cancer. , 2010, Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN.
[28] J. Ciezki,et al. Comparison of biochemical relapse-free survival between primary Gleason score 3 and primary Gleason score 4 for biopsy Gleason score 7 prostate cancer. , 2009, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.
[29] T. Skolarus,et al. Growth of high-cost intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer raises concerns about overuse. , 2012, Health affairs.
[30] Matthew R Cooperberg,et al. Contemporary trends in low risk prostate cancer: risk assessment and treatment. , 2007, The Journal of urology.
[31] Stacey A. Kenfield,et al. Prospective study of determinants and outcomes of deferred treatment or watchful waiting among men with prostate cancer in a nationwide cohort. , 2009, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.