Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 99

1.

The GP Score, a Simplified Formula (Bioptic Gleason Score Times Prostate Specific Antigen) as a Predictor for Biochemical Failure after Prostatectomy in Prostate Cancer.

Soga N, Ogura Y, Wakita T, Kageyama T, Furusawa J.

Curr Urol. 2019 Sep;13(1):25-30. doi: 10.1159/000499298. Epub 2019 Sep 10.

2.

Optimizing D'Amico risk groups in radical prostatectomy through the addition of magnetic resonance imaging data.

Algarra R, Zudaire B, Tienza A, Velis JM, Rincón A, Pascual I, Zudaire J.

Actas Urol Esp. 2014 Nov;38(9):594-9. doi: 10.1016/j.acuro.2014.03.003. Epub 2014 May 3. English, Spanish.

PMID:
24791621
3.

Reassessment of the risk factors for biochemical recurrence in D'Amico intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated using radical prostatectomy.

Narita S, Mitsuzuka K, Tsuchiya N, Koie T, Kawamura S, Ohyama C, Tochigi T, Yamaguchi T, Arai Y, Habuchi T; Michinoku Japan Urological Cancer Study Group.

Int J Urol. 2015 Nov;22(11):1029-35. doi: 10.1111/iju.12898. Epub 2015 Aug 20.

4.

External validation of the UCSF-CAPRA (University of California, San Francisco, Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment) in Japanese patients receiving radical prostatectomy.

Ishizaki F, Hoque MA, Nishiyama T, Kawasaki T, Kasahara T, Hara N, Takizawa I, Saito T, Kitamura Y, Akazawa K, Takahashi K.

Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2011 Nov;41(11):1259-64. doi: 10.1093/jjco/hyr136. Epub 2011 Sep 22.

PMID:
21940731
5.

Heterogeneity of Outcomes in D'Amico Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients after Radical Prostatectomy: Influence of Primary and Secondary Gleason Score.

Pollard ME, Hobbs AR, Kwon YS, Katsigeorgis M, Lavery HJ, Levinson A, Bernstein AN, Collingwood SA, Hall SJ, Jazayeri SB, Samadi DB.

Oncol Res Treat. 2017;40(9):508-514. doi: 10.1159/000477545. Epub 2017 Aug 10. Erratum in: Oncol Res Treat. 2017;40(10):622.

PMID:
28796995
6.

Preoperative model for predicting prostate specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy using percent of biopsy tissue with cancer, biopsy Gleason grade and serum prostate specific antigen.

Freedland SJ, Terris MK, Csathy GS, Kane CJ, Amling CL, Presti JC Jr, Dorey F, Aronson WJ; Search Database Study Group.

J Urol. 2004 Jun;171(6 Pt 1):2215-20.

PMID:
15126788
8.
9.
10.

Relationship between percent positive biopsies and biochemical outcome after permanent interstitial brachytherapy for clinically organ-confined carcinoma of the prostate gland.

Merrick GS, Butler WM, Galbreath RW, Lief JH, Adamovich E.

Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002 Mar 1;52(3):664-73.

PMID:
11849788
11.

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.

12.

Outcomes of Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 prostate cancer with minimal amounts (<6%) vs ≥6% of Gleason pattern 4 tissue in needle biopsy specimens.

Kır G, Seneldir H, Gumus E.

Ann Diagn Pathol. 2016 Feb;20:48-51. doi: 10.1016/j.anndiagpath.2015.10.013. Epub 2015 Dec 2.

PMID:
26750655
13.

Validation of the Prostate Cancer Risk Index (PRIX): a simple scoring system to predict risk of biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer.

Yoshida T, Nakayama M, Matsuzaki K, Kobayashi Y, Takeda K, Arai Y, Kakimoto K, Nishimura K.

Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2011 Nov;41(11):1271-6. doi: 10.1093/jjco/hyr139. Epub 2011 Oct 4.

PMID:
21971422
14.

Limitations in Predicting Organ Confined Prostate Cancer in Patients with Gleason Pattern 4 on Biopsy: Implications for Active Surveillance.

Perlis N, Sayyid R, Evans A, Van Der Kwast T, Toi A, Finelli A, Kulkarni G, Hamilton R, Zlotta AR, Trachtenberg J, Ghai S, Fleshner NE.

J Urol. 2017 Jan;197(1):75-83. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.07.076. Epub 2016 Jul 22.

PMID:
27457260
15.

Improved decision making in intermediate-risk prostate cancer: a multicenter study on pathologic and oncologic outcomes after radical prostatectomy.

Beauval JB, Ploussard G, Cabarrou B, Roumiguié M, Ouzzane A, Gas J, Goujon A, Marcq G, Mathieu R, Vincendeau S, Cathelineau X, Mongiat-Artus P, Salomon L, Soulié M, Méjean A, de La Taille A, Rouprêt M, Rozet F; Committee of Cancerology of the Association of French Urology.

World J Urol. 2017 Aug;35(8):1191-1197. doi: 10.1007/s00345-016-1979-z. Epub 2016 Dec 16.

PMID:
27987030
16.

Prediction of biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: analysis of 784 Japanese patients.

Hashimoto T, Yoshioka K, Nagao G, Nakagami Y, Ohno Y, Horiguchi Y, Namiki K, Nakashima J, Tachibana M.

Int J Urol. 2015 Feb;22(2):188-93. doi: 10.1111/iju.12624. Epub 2014 Oct 22.

17.

The Impact of Downgrading from Biopsy Gleason 7 to Prostatectomy Gleason 6 on Biochemical Recurrence and Prostate Cancer Specific Mortality.

Ham WS, Chalfin HJ, Feng Z, Trock BJ, Epstein JI, Cheung C, Humphreys E, Partin AW, Han M.

J Urol. 2017 Apr;197(4):1060-1067. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.11.079. Epub 2016 Nov 12.

PMID:
27847296
18.

Impact of positive surgical margins on prostate-specific antigen failure after radical prostatectomy in adjuvant treatment-naïve patients.

Ploussard G, Agamy MA, Alenda O, Allory Y, Mouracade P, Vordos D, Hoznek A, Abbou CC, de la Taille A, Salomon L.

BJU Int. 2011 Jun;107(11):1748-54. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09728.x. Epub 2010 Sep 30.

19.

Prognostic Significance of Percentage and Architectural Types of Contemporary Gleason Pattern 4 Prostate Cancer in Radical Prostatectomy.

Choy B, Pearce SM, Anderson BB, Shalhav AL, Zagaja G, Eggener SE, Paner GP.

Am J Surg Pathol. 2016 Oct;40(10):1400-6. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000691.

PMID:
27379821
20.

Evaluation of D'Amico criteria for low-risk prostate cancer.

Milonas D, Kinčius M, Skulčius G, Matjošaitis AJ, GudinavičienĖ I, Jievaltas M.

Scand J Urol. 2014 Aug;48(4):344-9. doi: 10.3109/21681805.2013.870602. Epub 2014 Feb 12.

PMID:
24521187

Supplemental Content

Support Center