Biyopsi Değerlendirilmesinde Gleason (3+3) Tanılı Hastaların Prostatlarında Kribriform Alan Şüphesi. Kısıtlı Morfolojik Görünüm Hastaları Takip Grubuna Almak için Yeterli Olmayabilir
Abstract
Keywords
Ethical Statement
References
- 1. Kryvenko ON, Epstein JI. Prostate Cancer Grading: A Decade After the 2005 Modified Gleason Grading System. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2016;140:1140-1152.
- 2. Braunhut BL, Punnen S, Kryvenko ON. Updates on Grading and Staging of Prostate Cancer. Surg Pathol Clin. 2018;11:759-774.
- 3. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, et al. 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. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40:244-252.
- 4. Goodman M, Ward KC, Osunkoya AO, et al. Frequency and determinants of disagreement and error in Gleason scores: a population-based study of prostate cancer. Prostate. 2012;72:1389-1398.
- 5. Al-Maghrabi JA, Bakshi NA, Farsi HM. Gleason grading of prostate cancer in needle core biopsies: a comparison of general and urologic pathologists. Ann Saudi Med. 2013;33:40-44.
- 6. Hofer DR, Sherwood ER, Bromberg WD, et al. Autonomous growth of androgen-independent human prostatic carcinoma cells: role of transforming growth factor alpha. Cancer Res. 1991;51:2780-2785.
- 7. Demark-Wahnefried W, Moyad MA. Dietary intervention in the management of prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol. 2007;17:168-174.
- 8. Gülhan Ö, Mahi B. The Role of AMACR, CD10, TMPRSS2-ERG, and p27 Protein Expression Among Different Gleason Grades of Prostatic Adenocarcinoma on Needle Biopsy. Clin Med Insights Oncol. 2020;14:1179554920947322.
Details
Primary Language
English
Subjects
Pathology
Journal Section
Research Article
Authors
Devrim Kahraman
*
0000-0001-9858-9252
Türkiye
Publication Date
June 30, 2022
Submission Date
March 18, 2022
Acceptance Date
May 11, 2022
Published in Issue
Year 2022 Volume: 75 Number: 2