Prostate Volume and Its Correlation with Histopathological Outcomes in Prostate Cancer
暂无分享,去创建一个
A. Tewari | P. Sooriakumaran | A. Srivastava | R. Leung | S. Grover | M. John | S. Rajan | Y. El-Douaihy | D. Bhagat
[1] H. Lepor,et al. Is the apical soft tissue margin a better predictor of biochemical recurrence than the surgical specimen? , 2011, Urologic oncology.
[2] James D Brooks,et al. Comparison of prostate cancer tumor volume and percent cancer in prediction of biochemical recurrence and cancer specific survival. , 2011, Urologic oncology.
[3] B. Guillonneau,et al. Location and number of positive surgical margins as prognostic factors of biochemical recurrence after salvage radiation therapy after radical prostatectomy , 2010, BJU international.
[4] Choung-Soo Kim,et al. Effect of prostate size on pathological outcome and biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: is it correlated with serum testosterone level? , 2010, BJU international.
[5] J. Moul,et al. Tumor percent involvement predicts prostate specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy only in men with smaller prostate. , 2010, The Journal of urology.
[6] H. Lepor,et al. Site of positive surgical margins influences biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy , 2009, BJU international.
[7] S. Sonnad,et al. Defining pathological variables to predict biochemical failure in patients with positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy: implications for adjuvant radiotherapy , 2009, BJU international.
[8] A. Tewari,et al. Prostate volume and the incidence of extraprostatic extension: is there a relation? , 2009, Journal of endourology.
[9] Michel Bolla,et al. [EAU guidelines on prostate cancer]. , 2009, Actas urologicas espanolas.
[10] 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.
[11] H. Lepor,et al. IS THE APICAL SOFT TISSUE MARGIN (ASTM) A BETTER PREDICTOR OF BIOCHEMICAL RECURRENCE (BR) THAN THE SURGICAL SPECIMEN MARGIN , 2008 .
[12] A. Jemal,et al. Cancer Statistics, 2006 , 2006, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.
[13] M. Kattan,et al. Prognostic impact of positive surgical margins in surgically treated prostate cancer: multi-institutional assessment of 5831 patients. , 2005, Urology.
[14] M. Terris,et al. Prostate size and risk of high-grade, advanced prostate cancer and biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy: a search database study. , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
[15] R. Kirby,et al. A large prostate at radical retropubic prostatectomy does not adversely affect cancer control, continence or potency rates , 2003, BJU international.
[16] M Bolla,et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. , 2001, European urology.
[17] P. Humphrey,et al. Visual estimate of the percentage of carcinoma is an independent predictor of prostate carcinoma recurrence after radical prostatectomy , 2000, Cancer.
[18] A. D'Amico,et al. A prostate gland volume of more than 75 cm3 predicts for a favorable outcome after radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. , 1999, Urology.
[19] M. Kattan,et al. Prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. , 1995, The Journal of urology.
[20] T. Wheeler,et al. Prostate specific antigen and gleason grade: an immunohistochemical study of prostate cancer. , 1994, The Journal of urology.
[21] V. Laudone,et al. Predicting biochemical recurrence-free survival for patients with positive pelvic lymph nodes at radical prostatectomy. , 2010, The Journal of urology.
[22] G. Andriole,et al. Prognostic Impact of Positive Surgical Margins in Surgically Treated Prostate Cancer: Multi-institutional Assessment of 5831 Patients , 2006 .