Literature DB >> 25487050

Prostate cancer: Is prostatectomy for Gleason score 6 a treatment failure?

Theodorus H van der Kwast1, Monique J Roobol2.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh：

Year:  2014        PMID： 25487050     DOI： 10.1038/nrurol.2014.335

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nat Rev Urol        ISSN： 1759-4812            Impact factor:   14.432


× No keyword cloud information.
  9 in total

1.  A critical analysis of the tumor volume threshold for clinically insignificant prostate cancer using a data set of a randomized screening trial.

Authors:  Tineke Wolters; Monique J Roobol; Pim J van Leeuwen; Roderick C N van den Bergh; Robert F Hoedemaeker; Geert J L H van Leenders; Fritz H Schröder; Theodorus H van der Kwast
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2010-11-12       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  Do adenocarcinomas of the prostate with Gleason score (GS) ≤6 have the potential to metastasize to lymph nodes?

Authors:  Hillary M Ross; Oleksandr N Kryvenko; Janet E Cowan; Jeffry P Simko; Thomas M Wheeler; Jonathan I Epstein
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 6.394

3.  Gleason 6 prostate tumors diagnosed in the PSA era do not demonstrate the capacity for metastatic spread at the time of radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Nicholas M Donin; Juliana Laze; Ming Zhou; Qinghu Ren; Herbert Lepor
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2013-05-22       Impact factor: 2.649

4.  Disease-specific death and metastasis do not occur in patients with Gleason score ≤6 at radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Charlotte F Kweldam; Mark F Wildhagen; Chris H Bangma; Geert J L H van Leenders
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2015-03-07       Impact factor: 5.588

5.  Insignificant disease among men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  Sung Kyu Hong; Emily Vertosick; Daniel D Sjoberg; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-09-27       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  Pathologic prostate cancer characteristics in patients eligible for active surveillance: a head-to-head comparison of contemporary protocols.

Authors:  Viacheslav Iremashvili; Lisét Pelaez; Murugesan Manoharan; Mercé Jorda; Daniel L Rosenberg; Mark S Soloway
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2012-03-17       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 7.  Defining the threshold for significant versus insignificant prostate cancer.

Authors:  Theo H Van der Kwast; Monique J Roobol
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2013-05-28       Impact factor: 14.432

8.  Lead time and overdiagnosis in prostate-specific antigen screening: importance of methods and context.

Authors:  Gerrit Draisma; Ruth Etzioni; Alex Tsodikov; Angela Mariotto; Elisabeth Wever; Roman Gulati; Eric Feuer; Harry de Koning
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2009-03-10       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  Tumor volume in insignificant prostate cancer: increasing threshold gains increasing risk.

Authors:  Jonas Schiffmann; Judith Connan; Georg Salomon; Katharina Boehm; Burkhard Beyer; Thorsten Schlomm; Pierre Tennstedt; Guido Sauter; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Markus Graefen; Hartwig Huland
Journal:  Prostate       Date:  2014-10-04       Impact factor: 4.104
  9 in total
  2 in total

Review 1.  Does true Gleason pattern 3 merit its cancer descriptor?

Authors:  Saiful Miah; Hashim U Ahmed; Alex Freeman; Mark Emberton
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2016-08-17       Impact factor: 14.432

2.  Two-dimensional neovascular complexity is significantly higher in nontumor prostate tissue than in low-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  Gianluigi Taverna; Fabio Grizzi; Piergiuseppe Colombo; Mauro Seveso; Guido Giusti; Silvia Proietti; Girolamo Fiorini; Giovanni Lughezzani; Paolo Casale; Nicolò Buffi; Massimo Lazzari; Giorgio Guazzoni
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2015-06-02
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.