Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 106

1.

Evolution, controversies and the future of prostate cancer grading.

Egevad L, Delahunt B, Yaxley J, Samaratunga H.

Pathol Int. 2019 Feb;69(2):55-66. doi: 10.1111/pin.12761. Epub 2019 Jan 29. Review.

PMID:
30694570
2.

International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading of prostate cancer - An ISUP consensus on contemporary grading.

Egevad L, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Samaratunga H.

APMIS. 2016 Jun;124(6):433-5. doi: 10.1111/apm.12533.

PMID:
27150257
4.

SOCS3 Immunohistochemical Expression Seems to Support the 2005 and 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Modified Gleason Grading System.

Pierconti F, Martini M, Cenci T, Petrone GL, Ricci R, Sacco E, Bassi PF, Larocca LM.

Prostate. 2017 May;77(6):597-603. doi: 10.1002/pros.23299. Epub 2017 Feb 1.

PMID:
28144985
5.

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.

Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA; Grading Committee.

Am J Surg Pathol. 2016 Feb;40(2):244-52. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000530. Review.

PMID:
26492179
6.

The impact of the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology consensus guidelines on Gleason grading - a matched-pair analysis.

Berg KD, Thomsen FB, Nerstrøm C, Røder MA, Iversen P, Toft BG, Vainer B, Brasso K.

BJU Int. 2016 Jun;117(6):883-9. doi: 10.1111/bju.13439. Epub 2016 Feb 22.

7.

From Gleason to International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading of prostate cancer.

Samaratunga H, Delahunt B, Yaxley J, Srigley JR, Egevad L.

Scand J Urol. 2016 Oct;50(5):325-9. doi: 10.1080/21681805.2016.1201858. Epub 2016 Jul 14. Review.

PMID:
27415753
8.

[The 2014 consensus conference of the ISUP on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma].

Kristiansen G, Egevad L, Amin M, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA, Epstein JI; Graduierungskommittee.

Pathologe. 2016 Feb;37(1):17-26. doi: 10.1007/s00292-015-0136-6. German.

PMID:
26809207
9.

The prognostic significance of the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading system for prostate cancer.

Samaratunga H, Delahunt B, Gianduzzo T, Coughlin G, Duffy D, LeFevre I, Johannsen S, Egevad L, Yaxley J.

Pathology. 2015 Oct;47(6):515-9. doi: 10.1097/PAT.0000000000000315.

PMID:
26325670
10.

Prostate cancer glands with cribriform architecture and with glomeruloid features should be considered as Gleason pattern 4 and not pattern 3.

Minardi D, Mazzucchelli R, Scarpelli M, Massari F, Ciccarese C, Lopez-Beltran A, Cheng L, Montironi R.

Future Oncol. 2016 Jun;12(12):1431-3. doi: 10.2217/fon-2016-0113. Epub 2016 Mar 30. No abstract available.

11.

Gleason grading: past, present and future.

Delahunt B, Miller RJ, Srigley JR, Evans AJ, Samaratunga H.

Histopathology. 2012 Jan;60(1):75-86. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2011.04003.x.

PMID:
22212079
12.
13.

Utility of Pathology Imagebase for standardisation of prostate cancer grading.

Egevad L, Delahunt B, Berney DM, Bostwick DG, Cheville J, Comperat E, Evans AJ, Fine SW, Grignon DJ, Humphrey PA, Hörnblad J, Iczkowski KA, Kench JG, Kristiansen G, Leite KRM, Magi-Galluzzi C, McKenney JK, Oxley J, Pan CC, Samaratunga H, Srigley JR, Takahashi H, True LD, Tsuzuki T, van der Kwast T, Varma M, Zhou M, Clements M.

Histopathology. 2018 Jul;73(1):8-18. doi: 10.1111/his.13471. Epub 2018 Mar 5.

PMID:
29359484
14.

Implications of the International Society of Urological Pathology modified Gleason grading system.

Egevad L, Mazzucchelli R, Montironi R.

Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2012 Apr;136(4):426-34. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2011-0495-RA. Review.

PMID:
22458905
15.

Validation of International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading for prostatic adenocarcinoma in thin core biopsies using TROG 03.04 'RADAR' trial clinical data.

Delahunt B, Egevad L, Srigley JR, Steigler A, Murray JD, Atkinson C, Matthews J, Duchesne G, Spry NA, Christie D, Joseph D, Attia J, Denham JW.

Pathology. 2015 Oct;47(6):520-5. doi: 10.1097/PAT.0000000000000318.

PMID:
26325671
16.

Accuracy of prostate biopsies for predicting Gleason score in radical prostatectomy specimens: nationwide trends 2000-2012.

Danneman D, Drevin L, Delahunt B, Samaratunga H, Robinson D, Bratt O, Loeb S, Stattin P, Egevad L.

BJU Int. 2017 Jan;119(1):50-56. doi: 10.1111/bju.13458. Epub 2016 Mar 24.

17.
18.

Prostate cancer: from Gleason scoring to prognostic grade grouping.

Montironi R, Santoni M, Mazzucchelli R, Burattini L, Berardi R, Galosi AB, Cheng L, Lopez-Beltran A, Briganti A, Montorsi F, Scarpelli M.

Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2016;16(4):433-40. doi: 10.1586/14737140.2016.1160780. Review.

PMID:
27008205
19.

Improving the Rotterdam European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator for Initial Prostate Biopsy by Incorporating the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology Gleason Grading and Cribriform growth.

Roobol MJ, Verbeek JFM, van der Kwast T, Kümmerlin IP, Kweldam CF, van Leenders GJLH.

Eur Urol. 2017 Jul;72(1):45-51. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.01.033. Epub 2017 Feb 2.

PMID:
28162815
20.

Prostate Cancer Grading: A Decade After the 2005 Modified Gleason Grading System.

Kryvenko ON, Epstein JI.

Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2016 Oct;140(10):1140-52. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2015-0487-SA. Epub 2016 Jan 12.

PMID:
26756649

Supplemental Content

Support Center