Literature DB >> 32363453

The 2014 ISUP grade group system: the Holy Grail or yet another hype?

Daimantas Milonas1,2, Steven Joniau3.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh：

Year:  2020        PMID： 32363453     DOI： 10.1007/s00345-020-03230-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Urol        ISSN： 0724-4983            Impact factor:   4.226


× No keyword cloud information.
  9 in total

1.  The new ISUP 2014/WHO 2016 prostate cancer grade group system: first résumé 5 years after introduction and systemic review of the literature.

Authors:  A Offermann; M C Hupe; V Sailer; A S Merseburger; S Perner
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2019-04-02       Impact factor: 4.226

2.  Patients with Biopsy Gleason 9 and 10 Prostate Cancer Have Significantly Worse Outcomes Compared to Patients with Gleason 8 Disease.

Authors:  Che-Kai Tsao; Kathryn P Gray; Mari Nakabayashi; Carolyn Evan; Philip W Kantoff; Jiaoti Huang; Matthew D Galsky; Mark Pomerantz; William K Oh
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2015-01-24       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  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.

Authors:  Judith Grogan; Ruta Gupta; Kate L Mahon; Phillip D Stricker; Anne-Maree Haynes; Warick Delprado; Jennifer Turner; Lisa G Horvath; James G Kench
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2017-04-30       Impact factor: 5.588

4.  Optimization of the 2014 Gleason grade grouping in a Canadian cohort of patients with localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Michel Wissing; Fadi Brimo; Simone Chevalier; Eleonora Scarlata; Ginette McKercher; Ana O'Flaherty; Saro Aprikian; Valérie Thibodeau; Fred Saad; Michel Carmel; Louis Lacombe; Bernard Têtu; Nadia Ekindi-Ndongo; Mathieu Latour; Dominique Trudel; Armen Aprikian
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2018-09-11       Impact factor: 5.588

5.  Validation of a Contemporary Five-tiered Gleason Grade Grouping Using Population-based Data.

Authors:  Jianming He; Peter C Albertsen; Dirk Moore; David Rotter; Kitaw Demissie; Grace Lu-Yao
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2016-12-07       Impact factor: 20.096

6.  Prognostic significance of Gleason score 3+4 versus Gleason score 4+3 tumor at radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  T Y Chan; A W Partin; P C Walsh; J I Epstein
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2000-11-01       Impact factor: 2.649

7.  The New Prostate Cancer Grading System Does Not Improve Prediction of Clinical Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy: Results of a Large, Two-Center Validation Study.

Authors:  Paolo Dell'Oglio; Robert Jeffrey Karnes; Giorgio Gandaglia; Nicola Fossati; Armando Stabile; Marco Moschini; Vito Cucchiara; Emanuele Zaffuto; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Nazareno Suardi; Francesco Montorsi; Alberto Briganti
Journal:  Prostate       Date:  2016-10-18       Impact factor: 4.104

8.  Independent validation of the prognostic capacity of the ISUP prostate cancer grade grouping system for radiation treated patients with long-term follow-up.

Authors:  D E Spratt; W C Jackson; A Abugharib; S A Tomlins; R T Dess; P D Soni; J Y Lee; S G Zhao; A I Cole; Z S Zumsteg; H Sandler; D Hamstra; J W Hearn; G Palapattu; R Mehra; T M Morgan; F Y Feng
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2016-05-24       Impact factor: 5.554

9.  Impact of the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology Grading System on Concept of High-Risk Prostate Cancer: Comparison of Long-Term Oncological Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy.

Authors:  Daimantas Milonas; Žilvinas Venclovas; Inga Gudinaviciene; Stasys Auskalnis; Kristina Zviniene; Nemira Jurkiene; Algidas Basevicius; Ausvydas Patasius; Mindaugas Jievaltas; Steven Joniau
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2019-11-19       Impact factor: 6.244
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.