Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 101

1.

Patients with Biopsy Gleason Score 3 + 4 Are Not Appropriate Candidates for Active Surveillance.

Park J, Yoo S, Cho MC, Jeong CW, Ku JH, Kwak C, Kim HH, Jeong H.

Urol Int. 2019 Nov 6:1-6. doi: 10.1159/000503888. [Epub ahead of print]

PMID:
31694041
2.

Prognostic Significance of the Disparity Between Biopsy and Pathologic Gleason Score After Radical Prostatectomy in Clinical Candidates for Active Surveillance According to the Royal Marsden Criteria.

Jo JK, Hong SK, Byun SS, Lee SE, Lee S, Oh JJ.

Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2016 Aug;14(4):e329-33. doi: 10.1016/j.clgc.2016.01.001. Epub 2016 Jan 22.

PMID:
26935997
3.

Comparison of clinical outcomes between upgraded pathologic Gleason score 3 + 4 and non-upgraded 3 + 4 prostate cancer among patients who are candidates for active surveillance.

Jo JK, Hong SK, Byun SS, Lee SE, Oh JJ.

World J Urol. 2015 Nov;33(11):1729-34. doi: 10.1007/s00345-015-1527-2. Epub 2015 Mar 26.

PMID:
25809876
4.

Predictive Factors and Oncologic Outcome of Downgrade to Pathologic Gleason Score 6⁻7 after Radical Prostatectomy in Patients with Biopsy Gleason Score 8⁻10.

Chung DY, Lee JS, Goh HJ, Koh DH, Kim MS, Jang WS, Choi YD.

J Clin Med. 2019 Mar 30;8(4). pii: E438. doi: 10.3390/jcm8040438.

5.

Does cumulative prostate cancer length (CCL) in prostate biopsies improve prediction of clinically insignificant cancer at radical prostatectomy in patients eligible for active surveillance?

Chen DJ, Falzarano SM, McKenney JK, Przybycin CG, Reynolds JP, Roma A, Jones JS, Stephenson A, Klein E, Magi-Galluzzi C.

BJU Int. 2015 Aug;116(2):220-9. doi: 10.1111/bju.12880. Epub 2014 Dec 15.

6.

Effects of Initial Gleason Grade on Outcomes during Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer.

Masic S, Cowan JE, Washington SL, Nguyen HG, Shinohara K, Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR.

Eur Urol Oncol. 2018 Oct;1(5):386-394. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2018.04.018. Epub 2018 May 24.

PMID:
31158077
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.

Stage T1-2 prostate cancer: a multivariate analysis of factors affecting biochemical and clinical failures after radical prostatectomy.

Kupelian PA, Katcher J, Levin HS, Klein EA.

Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997 Mar 15;37(5):1043-52.

PMID:
9169811
9.

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
10.

Clinical significance of a large difference (≥ 2 points) between biopsy and post-prostatectomy pathological Gleason scores in patients with prostate cancer.

Yoo C, Oh CY, Cho JS, Song C, Seo SI, Ahn H, Hwang TK, Cheon J, Lee KH, Kwon TG, Jung TY, Chung MK, Lee SE, Lee HM, Lee ES, Choi YD, Chung BH, Kim HJ, Kim WJ, Byun SS, Choi HY.

J Korean Med Sci. 2011 Apr;26(4):507-12. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2011.26.4.507. Epub 2011 Mar 28.

11.

Associations of pretreatment serum total testosterone measurements with pathology-detected Gleason score cancer.

Porcaro AB, Petrozziello A, Ghimenton C, Migliorini F, Sava T, Caruso B, Romano M, Cavalleri S, Artibani W.

Urol Int. 2014;93(3):269-78. doi: 10.1159/000354621. Epub 2013 Dec 11.

PMID:
24334919
12.

National Comprehensive Cancer Network® Favorable Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer-Is Active Surveillance Appropriate?

Aghazadeh MA, Frankel J, Belanger M, McLaughlin T, Tortora J, Staff I, Wagner JR.

J Urol. 2018 May;199(5):1196-1201. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.12.049. Epub 2017 Dec 26.

PMID:
29288120
13.

Percentage of cancer involvement in positive cores can predict unfavorable disease in men with low-risk prostate cancer but eligible for the prostate cancer international: active surveillance criteria.

Russo GI, Cimino S, Castelli T, Favilla V, Urzì D, Veroux M, Madonia M, Morgia G.

Urol Oncol. 2014 Apr;32(3):291-6. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2013.07.004. Epub 2013 Nov 1.

PMID:
24184119
14.

Extended prostate biopsy scheme improves reliability of Gleason grading: implications for radiotherapy patients.

King CR, McNeal JE, Gill H, Presti JC Jr.

Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004 Jun 1;59(2):386-91.

PMID:
15145152
15.

Preoperative characteristics of high-Gleason disease predictive of favourable pathological and clinical outcomes at radical prostatectomy.

Pierorazio PM, Ross AE, Lin BM, Epstein JI, Han M, Walsh PC, Partin AW, Pavlovich CP, Schaeffer EM.

BJU Int. 2012 Oct;110(8):1122-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.10986.x. Epub 2012 Feb 28.

16.

Adenocarcinoma of the prostate with Gleason score 9-10 on core biopsy: correlation with findings at radical prostatectomy and prognosis.

Ellis CL, Partin AW, Han M, Epstein JI.

J Urol. 2013 Dec;190(6):2068-73. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.05.056. Epub 2013 May 30.

PMID:
23727307
17.

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
18.

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
19.

Investigative clinical study on prostate cancer part IX and X: estradiol and the pituitary-testicular-prostate axis at the time of initial diagnosis and subsequent cluster selection of the patient population after radical prostatectomy.

Porcaro AB, Ghimenton C, Petrozziello A, Sava T, Migliorini F, Romano M, Caruso B, Cocco C, Antoniolli SZ, Lacola V, Rubilotta E, Monaco C.

Anticancer Res. 2012 Oct;32(10):4523-32.

PMID:
23060581
20.

Is the biopsy Gleason score important in predicting outcomes for patients after radical prostatectomy once the pathological Gleason score is known?

Vira MA, Guzzo T, Heitjan DF, Tomaszewski JE, D'Amico A, Wein AJ, Malkowicz SB.

BJU Int. 2008 May;101(10):1232-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.07508.x.

Supplemental Content

Support Center