Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 95

1.

Is active surveillance an appropriate approach to manage prostate cancer patients with Gleason Score 3+3 who met the criteria for active surveillance?

Ghiasy S, Abedi AR, Moradi A, Hosseini SY, Karkan MF, Sadri G, Davari M.

Turk J Urol. 2018 Nov 19:1-4. doi: 10.5152/tud.2018.72920. [Epub ahead of print]

PMID:
30461380
2.

Population based study of predictors of adverse pathology among candidates for active surveillance with Gleason 6 prostate cancer.

Vellekoop A, Loeb S, Folkvaljon Y, Stattin P.

J Urol. 2014 Feb;191(2):350-7. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.09.034. Epub 2013 Sep 23.

PMID:
24071481
3.

Incidence of Extraprostatic Extension at Radical Prostatectomy with Pure Gleason Score 3 + 3 = 6 (Grade Group 1) Cancer: Implications for Whether Gleason Score 6 Prostate Cancer Should be Renamed "Not Cancer" and for Selection Criteria for Active Surveillance.

Hassan O, Han M, Zhou A, Paulk A, Sun Y, Al-Harbi A, Alrajjal A, Baptista Dos Santos F, Epstein JI.

J Urol. 2018 Jun;199(6):1482-1487. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.11.067. Epub 2017 Nov 15.

PMID:
29154905
4.

Histopathological prostate cancer characteristics at radical prostatectomy after population based screening.

Hoedemaeker RF, Rietbergen JB, Kranse R, Schröder FH, van der Kwast TH.

J Urol. 2000 Aug;164(2):411-5.

PMID:
10893598
5.

Should a Gleason score be assigned to a minute focus of carcinoma on prostate biopsy?

Rubin MA, Dunn R, Kambham N, Misick CP, O'Toole KM.

Am J Surg Pathol. 2000 Dec;24(12):1634-40.

PMID:
11117784
6.

Expanded criteria to identify men eligible for active surveillance of low risk prostate cancer at Johns Hopkins: a preliminary analysis.

Reese AC, Landis P, Han M, Epstein JI, Carter HB.

J Urol. 2013 Dec;190(6):2033-8. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.05.015. Epub 2013 May 13.

PMID:
23680308
7.

Pathological outcomes in men with low risk and very low risk prostate cancer: implications on the practice of active surveillance.

Tosoian JJ, JohnBull E, Trock BJ, Landis P, Epstein JI, Partin AW, Walsh PC, Carter HB.

J Urol. 2013 Oct;190(4):1218-22. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.04.071. Epub 2013 Apr 30.

8.
9.

Radical prostatectomy findings in patients in whom active surveillance of prostate cancer fails.

Duffield AS, Lee TK, Miyamoto H, Carter HB, Epstein JI.

J Urol. 2009 Nov;182(5):2274-8. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.07.024. Epub 2009 Sep 16.

10.

Tumor Volume on Biopsy of Low Risk Prostate Cancer Managed with Active Surveillance.

Tosoian JJ, Mamawala M, Patel HD, Alam R, Epstein JI, Ross AE, Carter HB.

J Urol. 2018 Apr;199(4):954-960. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.10.029. Epub 2017 Oct 24. Erratum in: J Urol. 2018 May 8;:.

PMID:
29074222
11.

Perineural invasion status, Gleason score and number of positive cores in biopsy pathology are predictors of positive surgical margin following laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Yang R, Cao K, Han T, Zhang YF, Zhang GT, Xu LF, Lian HB, Li XG, Guo HQ.

Asian J Androl. 2017 Jul-Aug;19(4):468-472. doi: 10.4103/1008-682X.173444.

12.

Validation of a prediction model for low volume/low grade cancer: application in selecting patients for active surveillance.

Ochiai A, Trpkov K, Yilmaz A, Donnelly B, Babaian RJ.

J Urol. 2007 Mar;177(3):907-10.

PMID:
17296373
13.

Prostatectomy pathology findings in an active surveillance population.

Ramirez-Backhaus M, Iborra I, Gomez-Ferrer A, Rubio-Briones J.

Arch Esp Urol. 2014 Jun;67(5):431-9. Review. English, Spanish.

PMID:
24914842
14.
15.

A pathological reassessment of organ-confined, Gleason score 6 prostatic adenocarcinomas that progress after radical prostatectomy.

Miyamoto H, Hernandez DJ, Epstein JI.

Hum Pathol. 2009 Dec;40(12):1693-8. doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2009.05.001. Epub 2009 Aug 14.

PMID:
19683331
16.
17.

Nondissection of pelvic lymph nodes does not influence the results of perineal radical prostatectomy in selected patients.

Salomon L, Hoznek A, Lefrère-Belda MA, Bellot J, Chopin DK, Abbou CC.

Eur Urol. 2000 Mar;37(3):297-300.

PMID:
10720855
18.

Prospective evaluation of men with stage T1C adenocarcinoma of the prostate.

Carter HB, Sauvageot J, Walsh PC, Epstein JI.

J Urol. 1997 Jun;157(6):2206-9. Review.

19.

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. Epub 2011 Nov 15.

20.

Active Surveillance is an Appropriate Management Strategy for a Proportion of Men Diagnosed with Prostate Cancer by Prostate Specific Antigen Testing.

Overholser S, Nielsen M, Torkko K, Cwilka D, Weaver B, Shi X, Leach RJ, Hernandez J, Huang T, Thompson IM Jr, Thompson IM 3rd.

J Urol. 2015 Sep;194(3):680-4. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.01.089. Epub 2015 Jan 28.

PMID:
25636657

Supplemental Content

Support Center