Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 105

1.

Essential Updates in Grading, Morphotyping, Reporting, and Staging of Prostate Carcinoma for General Surgical Pathologists.

Paner GP, Gandhi J, Choy B, Amin MB.

Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2019 May;143(5):550-564. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2018-0334-RA. Epub 2019 Mar 13.

PMID:
30865487
3.

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
4.

Updates in the Eighth Edition of the Tumor-Node-Metastasis Staging Classification for Urologic Cancers.

Paner GP, Stadler WM, Hansel DE, Montironi R, Lin DW, Amin MB.

Eur Urol. 2018 Apr;73(4):560-569. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.12.018. Epub 2018 Jan 9. Review.

PMID:
29325693
5.

An update of the Gleason grading system.

Epstein JI.

J Urol. 2010 Feb;183(2):433-40. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.10.046. Epub 2009 Dec 14. Review.

PMID:
20006878
6.

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
7.

Updates on Grading and Staging of Prostate Cancer.

Braunhut BL, Punnen S, Kryvenko ON.

Surg Pathol Clin. 2018 Dec;11(4):759-774. doi: 10.1016/j.path.2018.07.003. Review.

PMID:
30447840
8.
9.

Prostate cancer grading in 2018: limitations, implementations, cribriform morphology, and biological markers.

Montironi R, Cimadamore A, Cheng L, Lopez-Beltran A, Scarpelli M.

Int J Biol Markers. 2018 Nov;33(4):331-334. doi: 10.1177/1724600818781296. Epub 2018 Jun 27.

PMID:
29945478
10.

Presence of invasive cribriform or intraductal growth at biopsy outperforms percentage grade 4 in predicting outcome of Gleason score 3+4=7 prostate cancer.

Kweldam CF, Kümmerlin IP, Nieboer D, Steyerberg EW, Bangma CH, Incrocci L, van der Kwast TH, Roobol MJ, van Leenders GJ.

Mod Pathol. 2017 Aug;30(8):1126-1132. doi: 10.1038/modpathol.2017.29. Epub 2017 May 19.

11.

Integrating Tertiary Gleason 5 Patterns into Quantitative Gleason Grading in Prostate Biopsies and Prostatectomy Specimens.

Sauter G, Clauditz T, Steurer S, Wittmer C, Büscheck F, Krech T, Lutz F, Lennartz M, Harms L, Lawrenz L, Möller-Koop C, Simon R, Jacobsen F, Wilczak W, Minner S, Tsourlakis MC, Chirico V, Weidemann S, Haese A, Steuber T, Salomon G, Matiu M, Vettorazzi E, Michl U, Budäus L, Tilki D, Thederan I, Pehrke D, Beyer B, Fraune C, Göbel C, Heinrich M, Juhnke M, Möller K, Bawahab AAA, Uhlig R, Huland H, Heinzer H, Graefen M, Schlomm T.

Eur Urol. 2018 May;73(5):674-683. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.01.015. Epub 2017 Jan 20.

PMID:
28117112
12.

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
13.

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):592-598. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.10.029. Epub 2015 Nov 2.

PMID:
26542947
14.

Update on the Gleason grading system for prostate cancer: results of an international consensus conference of urologic pathologists.

Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL.

Adv Anat Pathol. 2006 Jan;13(1):57-9.

PMID:
16462155
15.

Not all gleason pattern 4 prostate cancers are created equal: A study of latent prostatic carcinomas in a cystoprostatectomy and autopsy series.

Siadat F, Sykes J, Zlotta AR, Aldaoud N, Egawa S, Pushkar D, Kuk C, Bristow RG, Montironi R, van der Kwast T.

Prostate. 2015 Sep;75(12):1277-84. doi: 10.1002/pros.23009. Epub 2015 May 11.

PMID:
25963383
16.

The impact of the 2005 international society of urological pathology consensus conference on standard Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in needle biopsies.

Billis A, Guimaraes MS, Freitas LL, Meirelles L, Magna LA, Ferreira U.

J Urol. 2008 Aug;180(2):548-52; discussion 552-3. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.04.018. Epub 2008 Jun 11.

PMID:
18550106
17.
18.

Lack of association of prostate carcinoma nuclear grading with prostate specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

Zhou M, Hayasaka S, Taylor JM, Shah R, Proverbs-Singh T, Manley S, Rubin MA.

J Urol. 2001 Dec;166(6):2193-7.

PMID:
11696734
19.

Cribriform morphology predicts upstaging after radical prostatectomy in patients with Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 prostate cancer at transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided needle biopsy.

Keefe DT, Schieda N, El Hallani S, Breau RH, Morash C, Robertson SJ, Mai KT, Belanger EC, Flood TA.

Virchows Arch. 2015 Oct;467(4):437-42. doi: 10.1007/s00428-015-1809-5. Epub 2015 Jul 31.

PMID:
26229020
20.

Prognostic Value of the New Prostate Cancer International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Groups.

Offermann A, Hohensteiner S, Kuempers C, Ribbat-Idel J, Schneider F, Becker F, Hupe MC, Duensing S, Merseburger AS, Kirfel J, Reischl M, Lubczyk V, Kuefer R, Perner S.

Front Med (Lausanne). 2017 Sep 29;4:157. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2017.00157. eCollection 2017.

Supplemental Content

Support Center