Impact of pathology review of stage and margin status of radical prostatectomy specimens (EORTC trial 22911)
暂无分享,去创建一个
L. Collette | F. Schröder | M. Bolla | H. Poppel | K. Vekemans | J. Bosset | T. Kwast | P. Cangh | L. Dapozzo | K. Kurth | European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Groups | F. Schröder | F. Schröder
[1] E. Kaplan,et al. Nonparametric Estimation from Incomplete Observations , 1958 .
[2] D. Cox,et al. THE ANALYSIS OF EXPONENTIALLY DISTRIBUTED LIFE-TIMES WITH Two TYPES OF FAILURE , 1959 .
[3] Jacob Cohen. A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .
[4] T. Stamey,et al. Morphometric and clinical studies on 68 consecutive radical prostatectomies. , 1988, The Journal of urology.
[5] 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.
[6] N. Olson,et al. Analysis of risk factors associated with prostate cancer extension to the surgical margin and pelvic node metastasis at radical prostatectomy. , 1993, The Journal of urology.
[7] D. Bostwick,et al. Anatomic site-specific positive margins in organ-confined prostate cancer and its impact on outcome after radical prostatectomy. , 1997, Urology.
[8] [Do close but negative margins in radical prostatectomy specimens increase the risk of postoperative progression?]. , 1998, Der Urologe. Ausg. A.
[9] H. Fukuda,et al. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) and International Society for Cutaneous Lymphoma (ISCL) consensus recommendations for the management of cutaneous B-cell lymphomas Blood 2008; 112(5):1600-9 , 2022 .
[10] L. Egevad,et al. Interobserver reproducibility of percent Gleason grade 4/5 in total prostatectomy specimens. , 2002, The Journal of urology.
[11] A. Haese*,et al. Assessment of clinical and pathologic characteristics predisposing to disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy in men with pathologically organ-confined prostate cancer. , 2002, European urology.
[12] M. Cooperberg,et al. Time trends in clinical risk stratification for prostate cancer: implications for outcomes (data from CaPSURE). , 2003, The Journal of urology.
[13] M. Bakkaloğlu,et al. The role of the pathologist in the evaluation of radical prostatectomy specimens , 2003, Scandinavian journal of urology and nephrology.
[14] Rodolfo Montironi,et al. Handling and pathology reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens. , 2003, European urology.
[15] Sten Nilsson,et al. Prognostic factors and reporting of prostate carcinoma in radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy specimens , 2005, Scandinavian journal of urology and nephrology. Supplementum.
[16] A. Partin,et al. Surgical margin status after radical retropubic prostatectomy , 2005, BJU international.
[17] T. H. van der Kwast,et al. Detection rates of high‐grade prostate cancer during subsequent screening visits. Results of the European Randomized Screening Study for Prostate Cancer , 2006, International journal of cancer.
[18] R. Ackermann. Postoperative Radiotherapy After Radical Prostatectomy: A Randomised Controlled Trial (EORTC trial 22911) , 2006 .