ライフサイエンスコーパス: Gleason score

1 erences in participant age, PSA results, and Gleason score).

2 in three different groups according to their Gleason score.

3 nds observed for lymph node invasion and the Gleason score.

4 of early recurrence, independently of their Gleason score.

5 in EN2 levels according to genetic status or Gleason score.

6 were down-regulated in tumors with a higher Gleason score.

7 ntly affected by pathologic lesion volume or Gleason score.

8 maller lesions and is not affected by lesion Gleason score.

9 ely correlated with increased prostate tumor Gleason score.

10 ding T-stage, prostate-specific antigen, and Gleason score.

11 increase or decrease in primary or secondary Gleason score.

12 ameter alpha that can be associated with the Gleason score.

13 ostic features such as pathological stage or Gleason score.

14 with clinical stage, lymph node status, and Gleason score.

15 for ERG staining was associated with higher Gleason score.

16 erum samples of prostate cancer positive for Gleason score.

17 tion method, publication calendar period and Gleason score.

18 rimers used, publication calendar period and Gleason score.

19 between the image features and ROI-specific Gleason scores.

20 tures correlate moderately with ROI-specific Gleason scores.

21 n system compared with clinical criteria and Gleason scores.

22 rmality is benign or malignant and to assign Gleason scores.

23 een found to correlate negatively with tumor Gleason scores.

24 poor outcome in patients with low or average Gleason scores.

25 s and the association between ADCs and tumor Gleason scores.

26 in human prostate cancer specimens with high Gleason scores.

27 , and a subset of prostate cancers with high Gleason scores.

28 ht lobe) and higher components of pathologic Gleason scores.

29 f AFAP-110 in carcinomas correlated with the Gleason scores.

30 e, each pooled from 10 patients with various Gleason scores.

31 expression is directly correlated with high Gleason scores.

32 the clinical stages of prostate cancers and Gleason scores.

33 erous sextants with higher rather than lower Gleason score (1.05+/-0.26 vs 0.89+/-0.20, P<.001).

34 an ADCs were inversely associated with tumor Gleason scores (1.10, 0.98, 0.87, and 0.75 for Gleason s

35 ically registered whole-mount histology with Gleason scoring, (11)C-choline, and ADC data (obtained a

36 teria for AS were tumor stage (all cohorts), Gleason score (12 cohorts), prostate-specific antigen (P

37 ed on detection of low-risk prostate cancer (Gleason score 3 + 3 or low-volume 3 + 4) and the biopsy

38 ific antigen level of less than 10 ng/mL and Gleason score 3 + 3 tumors.

39 conference recommended that men with biopsy Gleason score 3 + 4 or 4 + 3 prostate cancer and tertiar

40 pathologic status) from prostate glands with Gleason score 3 + 4 versus 4 + 5 samples.

41 n, 80 clinically unimportant lesions (<5 mm; Gleason score, 3+3) were excluded.

42 rostate cancer (clinical stage T2a or lower; Gleason score, 3+3; index tumor </=10 mm(3)) underwent M

43 th Gleason score 7 without tertiary grade 5, Gleason score 5 to 6, or 8 to 10 disease, adjusting for

44 s a significantly more aggressive tumor than Gleason score 6 (GS6).

45 ad clinically localised disease (mostly T1c, Gleason score 6).

46 tive (Bx+) subjects from three institutions (Gleason scores: 6-9, Stage: T1-T3).

47 Gleason score 7 (GS7) prostate cancer [tumors with both

48 Men with Gleason score 7 and tertiary grade 5 disease had a signi

49 tion, men with prostate cancer having biopsy Gleason score 7 and tertiary grade 5 had a higher risk o

50 all cases (P = 0.013) and for a subset of 19 Gleason score 7 cases (P = 0.010), both of which were ad

51 the presence of tertiary grade 5 in men with Gleason score 7 disease and time to recurrence compared

52 (P < 0.001), as well as for the subset of 42 Gleason score 7 patients (P < 0.001).

53 ignificantly predict clinical recurrence for Gleason score 7 patients.

54 th a lower RSG 3 percentage, even within the Gleason score 7 subset of patients.

55 unger age at diagnosis, higher proportion of Gleason score 7 to 10, and advanced T-category cancers,

56 with positive lymph node (PLN) count </= 2, Gleason score 7 to 10, pT3b/pT4 stage, or positive surgi

57 Yet, the management of men with Gleason score 7 vs 8 or 9 prostate cancer differs.

58 To compare the prognostic significance of Gleason score 7 with tertiary grade 5 vs other Gleason s

59 k of PSA-failure when compared with men with Gleason score 7 without tertiary grade 5 and had a compa

60 nd time to recurrence compared with men with Gleason score 7 without tertiary grade 5, Gleason score

61 profiles of 74 patients with index tumors of Gleason score 7.

62 ), and intermediate-risk disease (T1-T2 with Gleason score, 7 and/or PSA, 10-20 ng/mL).

63 in the placebo group had high-grade cancer (Gleason score, 7 to 10) (relative risk, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.

64 ificant high-grade and larger-volume tumors (Gleason score 8 and 9) with higher specificity than MR i

65 ern 5 should have their cancer classified as Gleason score 8 or 9, respectively.

66 d when these men were compared with men with Gleason score 8 to 10 disease (median time, 5.1 years; a

67 y include men with seminal vesicle invasion, Gleason score 8 to 10, extensive positive margins, and d

68 de 5 and had a comparable risk with men with Gleason score 8 to 10.

69 Risk was elevated for high-grade (Gleason score 8 to 10; RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.45) a

70 d in 1,703 men; 127 cancers were high-grade (Gleason score 8-10).

71 Pathologic T3b/T4 stage, Gleason score 8-10, lymph node invasion, and Decipher sc

72 tly predicted metastasis within 10 years was Gleason score (8-10 vs 5-7; OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.77-2.58; p

73 These tumors can be described in terms of Gleason score, a classification not applied to any of th

74 e, lower pretherapeutic hemoglobin, a higher Gleason score, a higher number of platelets, higher C-re

75 cases, we identify two loci associated with Gleason score, a pathological measure of disease aggress

76 tatistically associated with a high combined Gleason score, advanced stage, and prostate-specific ant

77 PSA, PSA kinetics, Gleason score, age, time to biochemical relapse, ADT, an

78 thologic measure of malignancy, the surgical Gleason score, agrees better with these genomic paramete

79 Loss of this axis was associated with higher Gleason scores, an increased likelihood of metastatic an

80 The influence of primary Gleason score and ADT was assessed.

81 ated with prostate tumor progression to high Gleason score and elevated PSA levels, and served as an

82 wn as JMJD2A) was positively correlated with Gleason score and metastasis in human prostate tumors.

83 unx2 staining was positively correlated with Gleason score and occurrence of lymph node metastases wh

84 eased markers of disease aggressiveness (eg, Gleason score and pathological stage).

85 Based on a 6-segment model, the Gleason score and proportion of tumor tissue within each

86 on (P=0.003) in addition to that provided by Gleason score and prostate-specific antigen level at dia

87 nly slightly attenuated after adjustment for Gleason score and PSA at diagnosis (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.

88 stic biopsy than it does with the diagnostic Gleason score and related measures of diagnostic histopa

89 study of 157 high-risk patients, matched on Gleason score and stage with systemic progression or dea

90 hat includes cell type adjustments and using Gleason score and the seven-gene signature has some util

91 This classification is independent of Gleason score and therefore provides useful unique molec

92 r (11)C-choline uptake correlated with local Gleason score and tumor proliferation.

93 imens and its expression was correlated with Gleason scores and prostate-specific antigen recurrence.

94 Spearman correlation coefficients between Gleason scores and the ADC features were between -0.27 a

95 s tumor microenvironment correlated with low Gleason scores and weak PSCA staining on tumor cells pre

96 gery, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, Gleason score, and Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score.

97 retreatment prostate-specific antigen level, Gleason score, and clinical tumor stage for FFBF, and hy

98 influence of antihormonal treatment, primary Gleason score, and contribution of PET and morphologic i

99 d younger age, higher clinical stage, higher Gleason score, and higher prostate-specific antigen at d

100 Depending on patient age, Gleason score, and number of comorbidities present at di

101 e variable analyses, pathologic tumor stage, Gleason score, and pre-SRT PSA were associated with BcR,

102 d with treatment response, whereas pT stage, Gleason score, and surgical margin status did not.

103 of TMPRSS2:ERG fusions in relation to race, Gleason score, and tumor stage, combining results from G

104 erum prostate-specific antigen level, biopsy Gleason score, and year of treatment.

105 of the genes were low for non-cancer and low Gleason scores, and 6/6 known prostate cancer markers we

106 had higher prostate-specific antigen values, Gleason scores, and rates of extracapsular extension and

107 levels correlated with higher pT stages and Gleason scores, as well as with androgen (AR) and estrog

108 Neither technique was superior for Gleason score assessment.

109 of pain medication, prior chemotherapy, and Gleason score at initial diagnosis).

110 ncer at MR imaging had a greater risk of the Gleason score being upgraded at subsequent biopsy (hazar

111 ameters, 10th percentile ADC correlated with Gleason score better than did other ADC parameters, sugg

112 Histology confirmed 42 tumor nodules with Gleason scores between 3 + 2 and 4 + 4, with volumes ran

113 ole-lesion histogram and correlated with the Gleason score by using the Spearman correlation coeffici

114 Various models have been proposed using Gleason score, clinical findings, as well as measurement

115 iated with prognostic factors including high Gleason score, clinical stage, prostate-specific antigen

116 s, clinically localized PCa, availability of Gleason score, data available for post-treatment PSA and

117 to the measure of prostatic malignancy, the Gleason score, derived from individual prostate biopsy t

118 imaging is significantly dependent on lesion Gleason score; detection of lesions of >/=1 cm3 is signi

119 r, a significant number of patients with low Gleason scores develop aggressive disease as well.

120 For lesions of >/=1 cm3, lesion Gleason score did not significantly affect sensitivity (

121 c features (seminal vesicle invasion, biopsy Gleason score, extracapsular extension, preoperative PSA

122 or stage for FFBF, and hypofractionation and Gleason score for PCaSS were significant prognostic vari

123 pathology review of slides and regraded the Gleason scores for available samples.

124 6; at 24 months, three men had cancer with a Gleason score greater than 6.

125 h template biopsy, one man had cancer with a Gleason score greater than 6; at 24 months, three men ha

126 Eligible patients had T2-4 tumors with Gleason scores greater than 7 and/or PSA levels greater

127 For diagnosing cancers with Gleason scores greater than or equal to 7, the Likert sc

128 between benign and malignant tissue, between Gleason score (GS) </= 3 + 3 and GS >/= 3 + 4 tumors, an

129 ears were included; 599 patients (24%) had a Gleason score (GS) </= 6, 1,387 (56%) had a GS of 7, 244

130 urrogate PCa end points suggest outcomes for Gleason score (GS) 7 cancers vary according to the predo

131 nts to these decision rules, on detection of Gleason score (GS) 7 or greater (GS >/=7) prostate cance

132 ADC values were compared with the Gleason score (GS) after core needle biopsy (CNB) in pat

133 ion (rho) was calculated between cancer foci Gleason score (GS) and image features.

134 fied by (68)Ga-PSMA were correlated to their Gleason score (GS) at diagnosis.

135 risk prostate cancer (PC) within established Gleason score (GS) categories.

136 To compare risks for upgrading from a Gleason score (GS) of 6 or less to 7 or more across AS s

137 dy was to explore the ability of the initial Gleason score (GS) to predict the rate of detection of r

138 Correlation with Gleason score (GS) was evaluated with the Spearman rank

139 rent prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values, Gleason score (GS), and d'Amico risk classification.

140 hieved reasonably accurate classification of Gleason scores (GS) 6(3 + 3) vs. >/=7 and 7(3 + 4) vs. 7

141 he correlation of uptake within the gland to Gleason scores (GS) and assessment of the predictive pot

142 g (MRI) and have correlated this with grade (Gleason score; GS) and pathological staging (pT) of pros

143 state-specific antigen > 10 ng/mL, or biopsy Gleason score > or = 7) were evaluated using the chi(2)

144 was recommended for biopsy progression (ie, Gleason score > or = 7, or > 2 positive cores, or > 50%

145 primary endpoint definition (>/= 4 mm and/or Gleason score >/= 3+4), sensitivity, negative predictive

146 for detection of high-risk prostate cancer (Gleason score >/= 4 + 3); secondary end points focused o

147 are reclassified to a higher-risk category (Gleason score >/= 7) or who have significant increases i

148 s (68.0%) had clinically significant cancer (Gleason score >/= 7).

149 gnosed, 571 of which were aggressive (biopsy Gleason score >/= 7, and/or clinical stage III or greate

150 %, P = 0.0381), but independent from primary Gleason score >/= 8 (92.0%) versus </= 7 (90.2%, P = 0.6

151 The proportion of Gleason score >/= 8 decreased substantially less, from 2

152 gnosed with high-risk cancers (>/= T3 and/or Gleason score >/= 8), postdiagnosis daily aspirin use wa

153 0.91; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.07 for cancers with Gleason score >/= 8).

154 Clinically significant cancer was defined as Gleason score >/=4 + 3 or a maximum cancer core length 6

155 ow-grade (Gleason score <7), and high-grade (Gleason score >/=7) prostate cancer incidence.

156 sitively related to incidence of high-grade (Gleason score >/=7) tumors (rate ratioQ5-Q1 = 3.92; 95%

157 gressive and 273 aggressive (stage III/IV or Gleason score >/=7)) and 1,398 controls.

158 nostic factors, such as Gleason grade 4 + 3, Gleason score >/=7, vascular infiltration, and positive

159 The prevalence of a Gleason score >/=8, higher pathologic T stage, and bioch

160 prostate-specific antigen level >20 ng/ml, a Gleason score >7, locally advanced disease (clinical sta

161 TC+/AR-V7+ patients were more likely to have Gleason scores >/= 8 ( P = .05), metastatic disease at d

162 ncer versus normal tissue and correlate with Gleason scores >/=7.

163 tivity for discriminating PCa between higher Gleason score (>/=7) and lower Gleason score (<7) was 0.

164 io, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00-1.05; P = 0.037), and Gleason score (>7: hazard ratio, 2.49; 95% CI, 1.25-4.95

165 ratios were significantly increased in high-Gleason score (>or=4 + 3) lesions versus 3 + 4 and lower

166 ] for Gleason score</=6 vs 0.82 and 0.92 for Gleason score>/=7; P>/=.07).

167 ine positive biopsy findings (size, >/=3 mm; Gleason score, >/=6) were identified in 68 patients.

168 survival benefits from treating aggressive (Gleason score, >/=7) early-stage prostate cancer are und

169 en prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason scores; however, extended biopsy schemes may imp

170 Tumor was collected from the highest Gleason score in paraffin-embedded blocks and the gene e

171 related with advanced tumor stage and higher Gleason score in PCa specimens.

172 ion between phosphoS727-Stat3 expression and Gleason score in these prostate cancer tissues (P = 0.05

173 GF-beta signaling was associated with higher Gleason scores in archived human biopsies, mirroring mur

174 or ADCs were inversely associated with tumor Gleason scores in the transition zone.

175 ive bilaterally, and 41 patients (22.7%) had Gleason scores increased to 7 or higher.

176 High Gleason score is currently the best prognostic indicator

177 ive treatment practices whereby cases with a Gleason score lower than 7 and clinical T2a stage cancer

178 .001), stage less than T2b (P = .0111), and Gleason score < 7 (P = .0098).

179 sk tumor characteristics (PSA < 10 ng/mL and Gleason score < 7), and 89.2% underwent active treatment

180 ance (ie, PSA density < 0.15 ng/mL/cm(3) and Gleason score < or = 6 with no pattern > or = 4, involvi

181 For most patients with low-risk (Gleason score </= 6) localized prostate cancer, active s

182 intermediate-risk prostate cancer (T1 to 2a, Gleason score </= 6, and prostate-specific antigen [PSA]

183 < 0.15 ng/mL, and prostate biopsy findings (Gleason score </= 6, two or fewer cores with cancer, and

184 ic antigen level <10 microg/L, stage </=T2a, Gleason score </=3 + 3).

185 prostate specific antigen [PSA] </=15 ng/mL, Gleason score </=4 + 3, stage </=T2), with no previous a

186 cy was poor in small (<0.5 cc) or low-grade (Gleason score </=6) tumors, with a tendency toward overe

187 -risk disease (clinical stage </=T2a, biopsy Gleason score </=6, and prostate-specific antigen level

188 Total, low-grade (Gleason score <7), and high-grade (Gleason score >/=7) p

189 In higher Gleason score (</=7 vs. >/=8), detection efficacy was si

190 etween higher Gleason score (>/=7) and lower Gleason score (<7) was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.93-0.98) and 0.90

191 inically low-risk prostate cancer (cT1-cT2a, Gleason score</=6 at biopsy, prostate-specific antigen [

192 ity (0.83 [reader 1] and 1.00 [reader 2] for Gleason score</=6 vs 0.82 and 0.92 for Gleason score>/=7

193 49-70 years) with localized prostate cancer (Gleason score</=7, prostate-specific antigen level #15 m

194 h low-risk prostate (clinical stage T1c/T2a; Gleason score, </=6; and prostate-specific antigen level

195 all men in the very-low-risk group) (T1-T2; Gleason score, </=6; and PSA, <10 ng/mL), and intermedia

196 of the low-risk group) (clinical stage, T1c; Gleason score, </=6; prostate-specific antigen [PSA], <1

197 significantly associated with a higher tumor Gleason score (mean ADCs of [1.21, 1.10, 0.87, and 0.69]

198 in prostate tumors is associated with higher Gleason score, metastasis, and CRPC progression.

199 proNGF level positively correlated with the Gleason score (n = 104, tauB = 0.51).

200 nificantly higher in prostate cancers with a Gleason score of >/=3 + 4 than with a Gleason score of <

201 evel of proNGF was observed in tumors with a Gleason score of >/=8 compared with a Gleason score of 7

202 with a Gleason score of 7, and three with a Gleason score of >/=8) and five nonneoplastic prostate s

203 with a Gleason score of >/=3 + 4 than with a Gleason score of </=3 + 3 disease and controls.

204 .69] x 10(-3) mm(2)/sec were associated with Gleason score of 3 + 3, 3 + 4, 4 + 3, and 8 or higher, r

205 ith prostate adenocarcinoma (three patients, Gleason score of 3 + 4; and three patients, Gleason scor

206 y a majority of readers yielded tumor with a Gleason score of 3+4 or greater in 45.9% (17 of 37), wit

207 (17 of 37), without missing any tumor with a Gleason score of 3+4 or greater.

208 that sector to be deemed positive was set at Gleason score of 3+4 or more and/or cancer core length i

209 stage pT2a, intermediate-risk cancer with a Gleason score of 3+4) and caused 11 additional false-pos

210 Gleason score of 3 + 4; and three patients, Gleason score of 4 + 5) was performed across 23 spatiall

211 arameter to help differentiate tumors with a Gleason score of 6 from those with a Gleason score of at

212 Az values for differentiating lesions with a Gleason score of 6 from those with a Gleason score of at

213 ific antigen of 6 ng/mL or less, and 94% had Gleason score of 6 or less.

214 re differentially expressed in tumors with a Gleason score of 6 to 7 versus >/=8.

215 of 18 prostate cancer samples (seven with a Gleason score of 6, eight with a Gleason score of 7, and

216 Seventy sextants exhibited a Gleason score of 6; 51 exhibited a Gleason score of 7 or

217 biopsy-proved prostate cancer, with a median Gleason score of 7 (range, 6-9).

218 with a Gleason score of >/=8 compared with a Gleason score of 7 and 6 (P < 0.001).

219 hibited a Gleason score of 6; 51 exhibited a Gleason score of 7 or 8.

220 Presence of prostate cancer having Gleason score of 7 or higher on prostate biopsy.

221 This accuracy was good in tumors with a Gleason score of 7 or higher or a Likert score of 5, wit

222 ific antigen alone for detecting cancer with Gleason score of 7 or higher.

223 tate cancer was performed in patients with a Gleason score of 7 or less in three or fewer cores limit

224 needle biopsy, there were 220 tumors with a Gleason score of 7 to 10 among 3299 men in the dutasteri

225 even with a Gleason score of 6, eight with a Gleason score of 7, and three with a Gleason score of >/

226 oup analyzed consisted of all cancers with a Gleason score of 8 to 10 cancers.

227 g years 3 and 4, there were 12 tumors with a Gleason score of 8 to 10 in the dutasteride group, as co

228 treatment of locally advanced tumors with a Gleason score of 8 to 10 suggests that this should be th

229 than 40 mug/L or PSA of 20 to 40 mug/L plus Gleason score of 8 to 10 were randomly assigned to lifel

230 An increasing PSA level (P < .001); Gleason score of 8, 9, or 10 (P < .001); and clinical ca

231 tive models in discriminating cancers with a Gleason score of at least 7 among peripheral zone (PZ) l

232 ate results in discriminating cancers with a Gleason score of at least 7 among PZ lesions at 3 T in d

233 systematic biopsies; nearly 40% of men with Gleason score of at least 7 CaP are diagnosed only by ta

234 with a Gleason score of 6 from those with a Gleason score of at least 7 was assessed by using the ar

235 with a Gleason score of 6 from those with a Gleason score of at least 7 were 0.704, 0.692, 0.758, an

236 itivity of 0.95 in diagnosing cancers with a Gleason score of at least 7, and the area under the rece

237 For tumors with Gleason score of at least 7, sensitivity was higher with

238 The histologic extent and Gleason score of each segment of the prostate were compa

239 eason scores (1.10, 0.98, 0.87, and 0.75 for Gleason scores of 3 + 3, 3 + 4, 4 + 3, and >/= 4 + 4, re

240 ly significant differences among tumors with Gleason scores of 6, 7, and >/=8.

241 scheduled to undergo prostatectomy; they had Gleason scores of 7-10 and a mean prostate-specific anti

242 y set of ten tumor/normal subject pairs with Gleason scores of 8-10 at diagnosis, coordinated analysi

243 >50% clinical prostate cancer specimens with Gleason scores of 8-9 (n=11), which is associated with p

244 alphaDG subunit inversely correlate with the Gleason scores of prostate cancers; furthermore, we show

245 tep-section histopathologic examination, and Gleason scores of the tumors were recorded.

246 han age 65 years but was not associated with Gleason score or baseline PSA level.

247 n was not associated with age, baseline PSA, Gleason score, or tumor volume.

248 ated dose or type of statin, clinical stage, Gleason score, or with prediagnosis statin use; however,

249 Nuclear expression of Kaiso correlates with Gleason score (P < 0.001) and tumor grade (P < 0.001).

250 e) analysis, tumor Likert score (P < .0001), Gleason score (P = .009), and Vh (P < .0001) significant

251 cal parameters of prostate cancer, including Gleason score (P = .29).

252 no correlation between the SUVmax of PCA and Gleason score (P = 0.54).

253 SA) at diagnosis (P for trend < .001), lower Gleason score (P for trend < .001), and less advanced tu

254 s of tumors in the peripheral zone and their Gleason scores (P = .003; Spearman rho = -0.60) and D'Am

255 MPRSS2-ERG fusion was associated with higher Gleason scores (P = 0.027).

256 lue over standard prognostic markers such as Gleason score, pathologic tumor stage, surgical margin s

257 static progression, with variables including Gleason score, preoperative prostate-specific antigen co

258 en (PSA) doubling time of less than 3 years, Gleason score progression, or unequivocal clinical progr

259 patients who had not had radiotherapy using Gleason score, prostate-specific antigen concentration,

260 scored 0 to 12 based on Gleason score, prostate-specific antigen level, and clin

261 Covariates included age, race, tumor stage, Gleason score, prostate-specific antigen, weight, and tr

262 At the time of diagnosis, Gleason score provides the gold standard for assessing t

263 characteristics, and progression in terms of Gleason score, PSA kinetics, and active treatment were c

264 and that its expression correlates with high Gleason score, pT and pN stages, and biochemical recurre

265 ake in tumors was positively correlated with Gleason score (rho = 0.64; PSMA expression, rho = 0.47;

266 (Spearman rho [rho], range, -0.07 to 0.24), Gleason score (rho, range, 0.03 to 0.20), prostate-speci

267 pre-HIFU PSA level and favourable pathologic Gleason score seem to present better oncologic outcomes.

268 lysis, independent of clinical tumour stage, Gleason score, serum PSA concentration, and dose of radi

269 s, independent of pathological tumour stage, Gleason score, serum PSA concentration, and margin statu

270 s found between the baseline clinical stage, Gleason score, serum PSA level, or the presence of appar

271 abetes mellitus (DM), body mass index, race, Gleason score, stage, acid phosphatase level, prostatect

272 Further controlling for Gleason score, stage, age and to maintain equal number o

273 rence in risk when tumors were classified by Gleason score, stage, or mortality.

274 adverse medical factors: higher pretreatment Gleason scores, subsequent rises in prostate-specific an

275 e, year, race, comorbidity score, PSA level, Gleason score, T stage, N stage, chemotherapy administra

276 However, modification of the Gleason score to include a tertiary grade in Gleason 4+3

277 expertise in genitourinary cancers assigned Gleason scores to the prostate needle biopsy specimens.

278 especially drastic in metastatic and/or high Gleason score tumor samples.

279 cluded older age, comorbid conditions, lower Gleason score, tumor stage, PSA concentration, and favor

280 y associated with lower risk of biopsy-based Gleason score upgrade (hazard ratio per 1-year decrease,

281 ve of cancer may confer an increased risk of Gleason score upgrade at subsequent biopsy.

282 sociated with decreased risk of biopsy-based Gleason score upgrade during AS but not with risk of def

283 association of age with risk of biopsy-based Gleason score upgrade during AS.

284 The 3- and 5-year biopsy-based Gleason score upgrade-free rates were 73% and 55%, respe

285 ssess time to cancer progression, defined as Gleason score upgrading, prostate-specific antigen veloc

286 s with positive SB and TB results, TB led to Gleason score upgrading.

287 h tracers and corrected our calculations for Gleason scores using iterative matched-pair analyses.

288 1] and 0.61 [reader 2]) rather than when the Gleason score was >/=7 (0.73, P=.02 [reader 1]; and 0.84

289 ies were significantly lower when the lesion Gleason score was </=6 (0.44 [reader 1] and 0.61 [reader

290 of lethal disease beyond knowing whether the Gleason score was 4 + 3 or 3 + 4 (P = .006).

291 en (PSA) level was 5.5 ng/mL, and the median Gleason score was 6.

292 tissue array samples representing a range of Gleason scores, we found that OLFM4 protein expression c

293 the Spearman rho values for correlation with Gleason score were -0.31, -0.30, -0.36, and -0.35, respe

294 PSA level and Gleason score were associated with positivity of CE US-t

295 from prostate cancer patients with known the Gleason score were tested showing a significant statisti

296 Gleason scores were not assigned in the suspected recurr

297 ng quality (mean longest core cancer length, Gleason score) were compared.

298 d morphology is an integral component of the Gleason score which enables discrimination between prost

299 A proportion of men experience an upgrade in Gleason score while undergoing active surveillance.

300 eason score 7 with tertiary grade 5 vs other Gleason scores with respect to time to prostate-specific