Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 102

1.
2.

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
3.

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.

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
6.

Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system.

Pierorazio PM, Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI.

BJU Int. 2013 May;111(5):753-60. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11611.x. Epub 2013 Mar 6.

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.

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
9.

A Contemporary Prostate Cancer Grading System: A Validated Alternative to the Gleason Score.

Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD, Nelson JB, Egevad L, Magi-Galluzzi C, Vickers AJ, Parwani AV, Reuter VE, Fine SW, Eastham JA, Wiklund P, Han M, Reddy CA, Ciezki JP, Nyberg T, Klein EA.

Eur Urol. 2016 Mar;69(3):428-35. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.046. Epub 2015 Jul 10.

10.

High Gleason grade carcinoma at a positive surgical margin predicts biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy and may guide adjuvant radiotherapy.

Savdie R, Horvath LG, Benito RP, Rasiah KK, Haynes AM, Chatfield M, Stricker PD, Turner JJ, Delprado W, Henshall SM, Sutherland RL, Kench JG.

BJU Int. 2012 Jun;109(12):1794-800. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10572.x. Epub 2011 Oct 12.

11.
12.

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.

13.

Integrating tertiary Gleason pattern 5 into the ISUP grading system improves prediction of biochemical recurrence in radical prostatectomy patients.

Kato M, Hirakawa A, Kobayashi Y, Yamamoto A, Ishida R, Kamihira O, Kimura T, Majima T, Ishida S, Funahashi Y, Sassa N, Fujita T, Matsukawa Y, Yamamoto T, Hattori R, Gotoh M, Tsuzuki T.

Mod Pathol. 2019 Jan;32(1):122-127. doi: 10.1038/s41379-018-0121-8. Epub 2018 Sep 4.

PMID:
30181565
14.

Grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma: current state and prognostic implications.

Gordetsky J, Epstein J.

Diagn Pathol. 2016 Mar 9;11:25. doi: 10.1186/s13000-016-0478-2. Review.

15.

Predictive value of the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology grading system for prostate cancer in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy with long-term follow-up.

Grogan J, Gupta R, Mahon KL, Stricker PD, Haynes AM, Delprado W, Turner J, Horvath LG, Kench JG.

BJU Int. 2017 Nov;120(5):651-658. doi: 10.1111/bju.13857. Epub 2017 Apr 30.

16.

Contemporary grading for prostate cancer: implications for patient care.

Brimo F, Montironi R, Egevad L, Erbersdobler A, Lin DW, Nelson JB, Rubin MA, van der Kwast T, Amin M, Epstein JI.

Eur Urol. 2013 May;63(5):892-901. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.10.015. Epub 2012 Oct 17. Review.

PMID:
23092544
17.

Improving Clinical Risk Stratification at Diagnosis in Primary Prostate Cancer: A Prognostic Modelling Study.

Gnanapragasam VJ, Lophatananon A, Wright KA, Muir KR, Gavin A, Greenberg DC.

PLoS Med. 2016 Aug 2;13(8):e1002063. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002063. eCollection 2016 Aug.

18.

Evaluation of the 2015 Gleason Grade Groups in a Nationwide Population-based Cohort.

Loeb S, Folkvaljon Y, Robinson D, Lissbrant IF, Egevad L, Stattin P.

Eur Urol. 2016 Jun;69(6):1135-41. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.11.036. Epub 2015 Dec 17.

19.

Risk of lymph node metastases in pathological gleason score≤6 prostate adenocarcinoma: Analysis of institutional and population-based databases.

Wenger H, Weiner AB, Razmaria A, Paner GP, Eggener SE.

Urol Oncol. 2017 Jan;35(1):31.e1-31.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2016.08.004. Epub 2016 Sep 28.

PMID:
27692833
20.

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

Supplemental Content

Support Center