Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 433

1.

Original and reviewed nuclear grading according to the Fuhrman system: a multivariate analysis of 388 patients with conventional renal cell carcinoma.

Ficarra V, Martignoni G, Maffei N, Brunelli M, Novara G, Zanolla L, Pea M, Artibani W.

Cancer. 2005 Jan 1;103(1):68-75.

2.

Multicenter determination of optimal interobserver agreement using the Fuhrman grading system for renal cell carcinoma: Assessment of 241 patients with > 15-year follow-up.

Lang H, Lindner V, de Fromont M, Molinié V, Letourneux H, Meyer N, Martin M, Jacqmin D.

Cancer. 2005 Feb 1;103(3):625-9.

3.

A novel tumor grading scheme for chromophobe renal cell carcinoma: prognostic utility and comparison with Fuhrman nuclear grade.

Paner GP, Amin MB, Alvarado-Cabrero I, Young AN, Stricker HJ, Moch H, Lyles RH.

Am J Surg Pathol. 2010 Sep;34(9):1233-40. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e3181e96f2a.

PMID:
20679882
4.

Percentage of high-grade carcinoma as a prognostic indicator in patients with renal cell carcinoma.

Serrano MF, Katz M, Yan Y, Kibel AS, Humphrey PA.

Cancer. 2008 Aug 1;113(3):477-83. doi: 10.1002/cncr.23574.

5.

Prognostic ability of simplified nuclear grading of renal cell carcinoma.

Rioux-Leclercq N, Karakiewicz PI, Trinh QD, Ficarra V, Cindolo L, de la Taille A, Tostain J, Zigeuner R, Mejean A, Patard JJ.

Cancer. 2007 Mar 1;109(5):868-74.

6.
7.

Intraobserver and interobserver variability of Fuhrman and modified Fuhrman grading systems for conventional renal cell carcinoma.

Bektas S, Bahadir B, Kandemir NO, Barut F, Gul AE, Ozdamar SO.

Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2009 Nov;25(11):596-600. doi: 10.1016/S1607-551X(09)70562-5.

8.

Histological subtyping and nuclear grading of renal cell carcinoma and their implications for survival: a retrospective nation-wide study of 629 patients.

Gudbjartsson T, Hardarson S, Petursdottir V, Thoroddsen A, Magnusson J, Einarsson GV.

Eur Urol. 2005 Oct;48(4):593-600.

PMID:
15964127
9.

Papillary (chromophil) renal cell carcinoma: histomorphologic characteristics and evaluation of conventional pathologic prognostic parameters in 62 cases.

Amin MB, Corless CL, Renshaw AA, Tickoo SK, Kubus J, Schultz DS.

Am J Surg Pathol. 1997 Jun;21(6):621-35.

PMID:
9199639
10.

Prognostic role of the histologic subtypes of renal cell carcinoma after slide revision.

Ficarra V, Martignoni G, Galfano A, Novara G, Gobbo S, Brunelli M, Pea M, Zattoni F, Artibani W.

Eur Urol. 2006 Oct;50(4):786-93; discussion 793-4. Epub 2006 May 2.

PMID:
16697521
11.
12.

The chromophobe tumor grading system is the preferred grading scheme for chromophobe renal cell carcinoma.

Finley DS, Shuch B, Said JW, Galliano G, Jeffries RA, Afifi AA, Castor B, Magyar C, Sadaat A, Kabbinavar FF, Belldegrun AS, Pantuck AJ.

J Urol. 2011 Dec;186(6):2168-74. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.07.068. Epub 2011 Oct 19.

PMID:
22014797
13.

Proposal for revision of the TNM classification system for renal cell carcinoma.

Ficarra V, Guillè F, Schips L, de la Taille A, Prayer Galetti T, Tostain J, Cindolo L, Novara G, Zigeuner R, Bratti E, Li G, Altieri V, Abbou CC, Zanolla L, Artibani W, Patard JJ.

Cancer. 2005 Nov 15;104(10):2116-23.

14.

Significance of nuclear grade and tumor size in Korean patients with chromophobe renal cell carcinoma: a comparison with conventional renal cell carcinoma.

Ku JH, Moon KC, Kwak C, Kim HH.

Urol Oncol. 2011 Sep-Oct;29(5):487-91. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2009.05.011. Epub 2009 Sep 19.

PMID:
19767221
15.
16.

External validation of the Mayo Clinic stage, size, grade, and necrosis (SSIGN) score for clear-cell renal cell carcinoma in a single European centre applying routine pathology.

Zigeuner R, Hutterer G, Chromecki T, Imamovic A, Kampel-Kettner K, Rehak P, Langner C, Pummer K.

Eur Urol. 2010 Jan;57(1):102-9. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.11.033. Epub 2008 Nov 28.

PMID:
19062157
17.

Prognostic value of renal vein and inferior vena cava involvement in renal cell carcinoma.

Wagner B, Patard JJ, Méjean A, Bensalah K, Verhoest G, Zigeuner R, Ficarra V, Tostain J, Mulders P, Chautard D, Descotes JL, de la Taille A, Salomon L, Prayer-Galetti T, Cindolo L, Valéri A, Meyer N, Jacqmin D, Lang H.

Eur Urol. 2009 Feb;55(2):452-9. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.07.053. Epub 2008 Aug 5.

PMID:
18692951
18.

Morphometric index of adult renal cell carcinoma. Comparison with the Fuhrman grading system.

Montironi R, Santinelli A, Pomante R, Mazzucchelli R, Colanzi P, Filho AL, Scarpelli M.

Virchows Arch. 2000 Jul;437(1):82-9.

PMID:
10963384
19.

Prognostic features of pathologic stage T1 renal cell carcinoma after radical nephrectomy.

Lau WK, Cheville JC, Blute ML, Weaver AL, Zincke H.

Urology. 2002 Apr;59(4):532-7.

PMID:
11927308
20.

Fuhrman grading is not appropriate for chromophobe renal cell carcinoma.

Delahunt B, Sika-Paotonu D, Bethwaite PB, McCredie MR, Martignoni G, Eble JN, Jordan TW.

Am J Surg Pathol. 2007 Jun;31(6):957-60.

PMID:
17527087

Supplemental Content

Support Center