Contemporary Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: An Update With Discussion on Practical Issues to Implement the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma
暂无分享,去创建一个
Mahul B Amin | Victor E Reuter | P. Humphrey | V. Reuter | J. Epstein | M. Amin | Jonathan I Epstein | Peter A Humphrey
[1] Y. Yamada,et al. A new risk classification system for therapeutic decision making with intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients undergoing dose-escalated external-beam radiation therapy. , 2013, European urology.
[2] C. Pan,et al. The prognostic significance of tertiary Gleason patterns of higher grade in radical prostatectomy specimens: a proposal to modify the Gleason grading system. , 2000, The American journal of surgical pathology.
[3] K. Kuroiwa,et al. Impact of reporting rules of biopsy Gleason score for prostate cancer , 2008, Journal of Clinical Pathology.
[4] Ping Yang,et al. Architectural Heterogeneity and Cribriform Pattern Predict Adverse Clinical Outcome for Gleason Grade 4 Prostatic Adenocarcinoma , 2013, The American journal of surgical pathology.
[5] J. Melamed,et al. Size-adjusted Quantitative Gleason Score as a Predictor of Biochemical Recurrence after Radical Prostatectomy. , 2016, European urology.
[6] C. Roehrborn,et al. Validation of tertiary Gleason pattern 5 in Gleason score 7 prostate cancer as an independent predictor of biochemical recurrence and development of a prognostic model. , 2015, Urologic oncology.
[7] H. Lee,et al. Evaluation of concordance of Gleason score between prostatectomy and biopsies that show more than two different Gleason scores in positive cores. , 2006, Urology.
[8] Jennifer L. Beebe-Dimmer,et al. Prognostic Gleason grade grouping : data based on the modified Gleason scoring system , 2013 .
[9] J. Nelson,et al. The effect of limited (tertiary) Gleason pattern 5 on the new prostate cancer grade groups. , 2017, Human pathology.
[10] D. Gleason,et al. Histologic Grading and Staging of Prostatic Carcinoma , 1981 .
[11] A. Evans,et al. Active surveillance for the management of localized prostate cancer: Guideline recommendations. , 2015, Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada.
[12] C. Compton,et al. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual , 2002, Springer New York.
[13] D J Ruiter,et al. HISTOLOGICAL GRADE HETEROGENEITY IN MULTIFOCAL PROSTATE CANCER. BIOLOGICAL AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS , 1996, The Journal of pathology.
[14] Gleason Df. Classification of prostatic carcinomas. , 1966 .
[15] A. Shalhav,et al. Prognostic Significance of Percentage and Architectural Types of Contemporary Gleason Pattern 4 Prostate Cancer in Radical Prostatectomy , 2016, The American journal of surgical pathology.
[16] John T. Wei,et al. Prognostic Value of Percent Gleason Grade 4 at Prostate Biopsy in Predicting Prostatectomy Pathology and Recurrence. , 2016, The Journal of urology.
[17] 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.
[18] Esther I Verhoef,et al. Disease-specific survival of patients with invasive cribriform and intraductal prostate cancer at diagnostic biopsy , 2016, Modern Pathology.
[19] L. Turkeri,et al. Presence of high grade tertiary Gleason pattern upgrades the Gleason sum score and is inversely associated with biochemical recurrence-free survival. , 2013, Urologic oncology.
[20] Haiqun Lin,et al. Tertiary Gleason pattern 5 is a powerful predictor of biochemical relapse in patients with Gleason score 7 prostatic adenocarcinoma. , 2006, The Journal of urology.
[21] Jonathan I. Epstein,et al. WHO Classification of of Tumours of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs , 2016 .
[22] 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.
[23] D. Gleason,et al. Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. , 1974, The Journal of urology.
[24] A. Haese*,et al. Clinical Utility of Quantitative Gleason Grading in Prostate Biopsies and Prostatectomy Specimens. , 2016, European urology.
[25] 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.
[26] C. Lawton. Significance of Tertiary Gleason Pattern 5 in Gleason Score 7 Radical Prostatectomy Specimens , 2009 .
[27] C. Morash,et al. Utility of Gleason pattern 4 morphologies detected on transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsies for prediction of upgrading or upstaging in Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 prostate cancer , 2016, Virchows Archiv.
[28] B. Sarbay,et al. Significance of the cribriform pattern in prostatic adenocarcinomas. , 2014, Pathology, research and practice.
[29] Does the tertiary Gleason pattern influence the PSA progression-free interval after retropubic radical prostatectomy for organ-confined prostate cancer? , 2004, European urology.
[30] B. Trock,et al. An updated prostate cancer staging nomogram (Partin tables) based on cases from 2006 to 2011 , 2013, BJU international.
[31] C. Morash,et al. Cribriform morphology predicts upstaging after radical prostatectomy in patients with Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 prostate cancer at transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided needle biopsy , 2015, Virchows Archiv.
[32] J. Epstein,et al. Interobserver Reproducibility of Percent Gleason Pattern 4 in Prostatic Adenocarcinoma on Prostate Biopsies , 2016, The American journal of surgical pathology.
[33] J. Cuzick,et al. Validation of a contemporary prostate cancer grading system using prostate cancer death as outcome , 2016, British Journal of Cancer.
[34] D. Gleason,et al. Histologic grading of prostate cancer: a perspective. , 1992, Human pathology.
[35] Joseph A. Smith,et al. Predicting the presence and side of extracapsular extension: A nomogram for staging prostate cancer , 2004 .
[36] T. H. van der Kwast,et al. Prognostic impact of intraductal carcinoma and large cribriform carcinoma architecture after prostatectomy in a contemporary cohort. , 2014, European journal of cancer.
[37] B. Sarbay,et al. The association of the cribriform pattern with outcome for prostatic adenocarcinomas. , 2014, Pathology, research and practice.
[38] B. Delahunt,et al. Utility of Reporting the Percentage of High-grade Prostate Cancer. , 2016, European urology.
[39] A. Shirato,et al. Tertiary Gleason pattern 5 and oncological outcomes after radical prostatectomy. , 2011, Japanese journal of clinical oncology.
[40] W. Ellis,et al. Tertiary Gleason pattern 5 in Gleason 7 prostate cancer predicts pathological stage and biochemical recurrence. , 2008, The Journal of urology.
[41] Liang Cheng,et al. Preoperative prediction of Gleason grade in radical prostatectomy specimens: the influence of different Gleason grades from multiple positive biopsy sites , 2005, Modern Pathology.
[42] Z. Hall. Cancer , 1906, The Hospital.
[43] Vilppu J. Tuominen,et al. Overall and worst gleason scores are equally good predictors of prostate cancer progression , 2011, BMC urology.
[44] K. Guru,et al. Clinical significance of prospectively assigned Gleason tertiary pattern 4 in contemporary Gleason score 3+3=6 prostate cancer , 2016, The Prostate.
[45] J. Melamed,et al. Re-evaluating the concept of “dominant/index tumor nodule” in multifocal prostate cancer , 2014, Virchows Archiv.
[46] B. Trock,et al. Tertiary Gleason patterns and biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy: proposal for a modified Gleason scoring system. , 2009, The Journal of urology.
[47] B. Delahunt,et al. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System , 2015, The American journal of surgical pathology.
[48] Ziding Feng,et al. Histologic Grading of Prostatic Adenocarcinoma Can Be Further Optimized: Analysis of the Relative Prognostic Strength of Individual Architectural Patterns in 1275 Patients From the Canary Retrospective Cohort , 2016, The American journal of surgical pathology.
[49] Gleason Df,et al. Survival rates of patients with prostatic cancer, tumor stage, and differentiation--preliminary report. , 1966 .
[50] Wei Huang,et al. Digital quantification of five high-grade prostate cancer patterns, including the cribriform pattern, and their association with adverse outcome. , 2011, American journal of clinical pathology.
[51] A. Haese*,et al. A tertiary Gleason pattern in the prostatectomy specimen and its association with adverse outcome after radical prostatectomy. , 2014, The Journal of urology.
[52] Ronald C. Chen,et al. Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer (Cancer Care Ontario Guideline): American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Endorsement. , 2016, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
[53] Ewout W Steyerberg,et al. Cribriform growth is highly predictive for postoperative metastasis and disease-specific death in Gleason score 7 prostate cancer , 2015, Modern Pathology.
[54] R. Dhir. Multiple prostate cancer cores with different Gleason grades submitted in the same specimen container without specific site designation: should each core be assigned an individual Gleason score? , 2010 .
[55] J. Epstein,et al. Should each core with prostate cancer be assigned a separate gleason score? , 2003, Human pathology.