Clinical Utility of Quantitative Gleason Grading in Prostate Biopsies and Prostatectomy Specimens.
暂无分享,去创建一个
A. Haese* | G. Sauter | T. Schlomm | S. Steurer | T. Clauditz | T. Krech | C. Wittmer | F. Lutz | M. Lennartz | Tim Janssen | Nayira Hakimi | R. Simon | Mareike von Petersdorff-Campen | F. Jacobsen | K. von Loga | W. Wilczak | S. Minner | M. Tsourlakis | V. Chirico | H. Heinzer | B. Beyer | M. Graefen | U. Michl | G. Salomon | T. Steuber | L. Budäus | E. Hekeler | Julia Malsy-Mink | Sven Kutzera | C. Fraune | Cosima Göbel | H. Huland | Viktoria Chirico | Corinna Wittmer
[1] Gleason Df. Classification of prostatic carcinomas. , 1966 .
[2] T. Stamey,et al. Histologic differentiation, cancer volume, and pelvic lymph node metastasis in adenocarcinoma of the prostate , 1990, Cancer.
[3] D. Gleason,et al. Histologic grading of prostate cancer: a perspective. , 1992, Human pathology.
[4] T. Stamey,et al. Biological determinants of cancer progression in men with prostate cancer. , 1999, JAMA.
[5] A W Partin,et al. Prognostic significance of Gleason score 3+4 versus Gleason score 4+3 tumor at radical prostatectomy. , 2000, Urology.
[6] A. Billis. Percent Gleason grade (4/5) as prognostic factor in prostate cancer diagnosed at transurethral resection. , 2002, International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology.
[7] 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.
[8] 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.
[9] Haiqun Lin,et al. Percentage of Gleason pattern 4 and 5 predicts survival after radical prostatectomy , 2007, Cancer.
[10] R. V. D. van den Bergh,et al. Prospective validation of active surveillance in prostate cancer: the PRIAS study. , 2007, European urology.
[11] 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.
[12] A. Haese*,et al. Contemporary prostate cancer prevalence among T1c biopsy-referred men with a prostate-specific antigen level < or = 4.0 ng per milliliter. , 2008, European urology.
[13] Alan Horwich,et al. Predicting the probability of deferred radical treatment for localised prostate cancer managed by active surveillance. , 2008, European urology.
[14] 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.
[15] Andrew J. Evans,et al. Interactive digital slides with heat maps: a novel method to improve the reproducibility of Gleason grading , 2011, Virchows Archiv.
[16] Kirsten L. Greene,et al. Outcomes of active surveillance for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. , 2011, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
[17] Identification of Gleason pattern 5 on prostatic needle core biopsy: frequency of underdiagnosis and relation to morphology , 2011 .
[18] J. Moul,et al. Impact of primary Gleason grade on risk stratification for Gleason score 7 prostate cancers. , 2012, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.
[19] R. V. D. van den Bergh,et al. Outcomes of initially expectantly managed patients with low or intermediate risk screen‐detected localized prostate cancer , 2012, BJU international.
[20] J. Epstein,et al. Gleason pattern 5 is frequently underdiagnosed on prostate needle-core biopsy. , 2012, Urology.
[21] L. Klotz. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer , 2012, F1000 medicine reports.
[22] D. Berney,et al. Standardization of Gleason grading among 337 European pathologists , 2013, Histopathology.
[23] Contemporary Grading for Prostate Cancer: Implications for Patient Care , 2013 .
[24] Mohammad Hassan Murad,et al. Early detection of prostate cancer: AUA Guideline. , 2013, The Journal of urology.
[25] P. Carroll,et al. Prostate cancer early detection, version 1.2014. Featured updates to the NCCN Guidelines. , 2014, Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN.
[26] P. Carroll,et al. Prostate cancer early detection version 1 , 2014 .
[27] T. H. van der Kwast,et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. , 2014, European urology.
[28] H. G. van der Poel,et al. Can we expand active surveillance criteria to include biopsy Gleason 3+4 prostate cancer? A multi-institutional study of 2,323 patients. , 2015, Urologic oncology.
[29] Vergleich von vier Behandlungsoptionen beim Prostatakarzinom mit niedrigem Risiko , 2015, Der Urologe.
[30] [Comparison of four treatment options for low-risk prostate cancer: Preference-based randomized study for the evaluation of four treatment modalities in prostate cancer with low or "early intermediate" risk (PREFERE) - trial AP 65/11 of the AUO]. , 2015, Der Urologe. Ausg. A.