Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 94

1.

Gene panel model predictive of outcome in patients with prostate cancer.

Rabiau N, Dantal Y, Guy L, Ngollo M, Dagdemir A, Kemeny JL, Terris B, Vieillefond A, Boiteux JP, Bignon YJ, Bernard-Gallon D.

OMICS. 2013 Aug;17(8):407-13. doi: 10.1089/omi.2012.0124.

2.

A 17-gene assay to predict prostate cancer aggressiveness in the context of Gleason grade heterogeneity, tumor multifocality, and biopsy undersampling.

Klein EA, Cooperberg MR, Magi-Galluzzi C, Simko JP, Falzarano SM, Maddala T, Chan JM, Li J, Cowan JE, Tsiatis AC, Cherbavaz DB, Pelham RJ, Tenggara-Hunter I, Baehner FL, Knezevic D, Febbo PG, Shak S, Kattan MW, Lee M, Carroll PR.

Eur Urol. 2014 Sep;66(3):550-60. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.05.004.

3.

Use of two gene panels for prostate cancer diagnosis and patient risk stratification.

Xiao K, Guo J, Zhang X, Feng X, Zhang H, Cheng Z, Johnson H, Persson JL, Chen L.

Tumour Biol. 2016 Aug;37(8):10115-22. doi: 10.1007/s13277-015-4619-0.

PMID:
26820133
4.

Early detection of clinically significant prostate cancer at diagnosis: a prospective study using a novel panel of TMPRSS2:ETS fusion gene markers.

Chan SW, Nguyen PN, Violette P, Brimo F, Taguchi Y, Aprikian A, Chen JZ.

Cancer Med. 2013 Feb;2(1):63-75. doi: 10.1002/cam4.49.

5.

Integration of copy number and transcriptomics provides risk stratification in prostate cancer: A discovery and validation cohort study.

Ross-Adams H, Lamb AD, Dunning MJ, Halim S, Lindberg J, Massie CM, Egevad LA, Russell R, Ramos-Montoya A, Vowler SL, Sharma NL, Kay J, Whitaker H, Clark J, Hurst R, Gnanapragasam VJ, Shah NC, Warren AY, Cooper CS, Lynch AG, Stark R, Mills IG, Grönberg H, Neal DE; CamCaP Study Group..

EBioMedicine. 2015 Jul 29;2(9):1133-44. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2015.07.017.

6.

A Biopsy-based 17-gene Genomic Prostate Score Predicts Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy and Adverse Surgical Pathology in a Racially Diverse Population of Men with Clinically Low- and Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer.

Cullen J, Rosner IL, Brand TC, Zhang N, Tsiatis AC, Moncur J, Ali A, Chen Y, Knezevic D, Maddala T, Lawrence HJ, Febbo PG, Srivastava S, Sesterhenn IA, McLeod DG.

Eur Urol. 2015 Jul;68(1):123-31. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.030.

7.

Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Predicts Postoperative Pathology but Misses Aggressive Prostate Cancers as Assessed by Cell Cycle Progression Score.

Renard-Penna R, Cancel-Tassin G, Comperat E, Varinot J, Léon P, Roupret M, Mozer P, Vaessen C, Lucidarme O, Bitker MO, Cussenot O.

J Urol. 2015 Dec;194(6):1617-23. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.06.107.

PMID:
26272031
8.

Can multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging predict upgrading of transrectal ultrasound biopsy results at more definitive histology?

Abd-Alazeez M, Ahmed HU, Arya M, Allen C, Dikaios N, Freeman A, Emberton M, Kirkham A.

Urol Oncol. 2014 Aug;32(6):741-7. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.01.008.

PMID:
24981993
9.
10.

A genomic classifier improves prediction of metastatic disease within 5 years after surgery in node-negative high-risk prostate cancer patients managed by radical prostatectomy without adjuvant therapy.

Klein EA, Yousefi K, Haddad Z, Choeurng V, Buerki C, Stephenson AJ, Li J, Kattan MW, Magi-Galluzzi C, Davicioni E.

Eur Urol. 2015 Apr;67(4):778-86. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.036.

PMID:
25466945
11.

Tissue-based Genomics Augments Post-prostatectomy Risk Stratification in a Natural History Cohort of Intermediate- and High-Risk Men.

Ross AE, Johnson MH, Yousefi K, Davicioni E, Netto GJ, Marchionni L, Fedor HL, Glavaris S, Choeurng V, Buerki C, Erho N, Lam LL, Humphreys EB, Faraj S, Bezerra SM, Han M, Partin AW, Trock BJ, Schaeffer EM.

Eur Urol. 2016 Jan;69(1):157-65. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.05.042.

PMID:
26058959
12.

Prostate cancer Ki-67 (MIB-1) expression, perineural invasion, and gleason score as biopsy-based predictors of prostate cancer mortality: the Mayo model.

Tollefson MK, Karnes RJ, Kwon ED, Lohse CM, Rangel LJ, Mynderse LA, Cheville JC, Sebo TJ.

Mayo Clin Proc. 2014 Mar;89(3):308-18. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2013.12.001.

PMID:
24486077
13.

The ability of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density to predict an upgrade in Gleason score between initial prostate biopsy and prostatectomy diminishes with increasing tumour grade due to reduced PSA secretion per unit tumour volume.

Corcoran NM, Casey RG, Hong MK, Pedersen J, Connolly S, Peters J, Harewood L, Gleave ME, Costello AJ, Hovens CM, Goldenberg SL.

BJU Int. 2012 Jul;110(1):36-42. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10681.x.

14.

The relationship between Prostate CAncer gene 3 (PCA3) and prostate cancer significance.

van Poppel H, Haese A, Graefen M, de la Taille A, Irani J, de Reijke T, Remzi M, Marberger M.

BJU Int. 2012 Feb;109(3):360-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10377.x.

15.

Clinical Utility of Quantitative Gleason Grading in Prostate Biopsies and Prostatectomy Specimens.

Sauter G, Steurer S, Clauditz TS, Krech T, Wittmer C, Lutz F, Lennartz M, Janssen T, Hakimi N, Simon R, von Petersdorff-Campen M, Jacobsen F, von Loga K, Wilczak W, Minner S, Tsourlakis MC, Chirico V, Haese A, Heinzer H, Beyer B, Graefen M, Michl U, Salomon G, Steuber T, Budäus LH, Hekeler E, Malsy-Mink J, Kutzera S, Fraune C, Göbel C, Huland H, Schlomm T.

Eur Urol. 2016 Apr;69(4):592-8. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.10.029.

PMID:
26542947
16.

[Staging of prostate cancer: value of the combined information of endorectal MRI, biopsy Gleason score, and preoperative PSA level].

Wetter A, Ajdukovic AN, Fliessbach K, Lehnert T, Engl T, Jacobi V, Vogl TJ.

Rofo. 2006 Apr;178(4):385-90. German.

PMID:
16607587
17.

Identification of a Candidate Gene Panel for the Early Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer.

Leyten GH, Hessels D, Smit FP, Jannink SA, de Jong H, Melchers WJ, Cornel EB, de Reijke TM, Vergunst H, Kil P, Knipscheer BC, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, Mulders PF, van Oort IM, Schalken JA.

Clin Cancer Res. 2015 Jul 1;21(13):3061-70. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-3334.

18.

Urinary miR-183 and miR-205 do not surpass PCA3 in urine as predictive markers for prostate biopsy outcome despite their highly dysregulated expression in prostate cancer tissue.

Stephan C, Jung M, Rabenhorst S, Kilic E, Jung K.

Clin Chem Lab Med. 2015 Jun;53(7):1109-18. doi: 10.1515/cclm-2014-1000.

PMID:
25720086
19.

Predicting the risk of harboring high-grade disease for patients diagnosed with prostate cancer scored as Gleason ≤ 6 on biopsy cores.

Seisen T, Roudot-Thoraval F, Bosset PO, Beaugerie A, Allory Y, Vordos D, Abbou CC, De La Taille A, Salomon L.

World J Urol. 2015 Jun;33(6):787-92. doi: 10.1007/s00345-014-1348-8.

PMID:
24985552
20.

Operator dependent choice of prostate cancer biopsy has limited impact on a gene signature analysis for the highly expressed genes IGFBP3 and F3 in prostate cancer epithelial cells.

Peng Z, Andersson K, Lindholm J, Bodin I, Pramana S, Pawitan Y, Nistér M, Nilsson S, Li C.

PLoS One. 2014 Oct 8;9(10):e109610. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0109610.

Supplemental Content

Support Center