戻る
「早戻しボタン」を押すと検索画面に戻ります。 [閉じる]

コーパス検索結果 (１語後でソート)

通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1 erences in participant age, PSA results, and Gleason score).
2 erum samples of prostate cancer positive for Gleason score.
3 tion method, publication calendar period and Gleason score.
4 rimers used, publication calendar period and Gleason score.
5 in three different groups according to their Gleason score.
6 nds observed for lymph node invasion and the Gleason score.
7  of early recurrence, independently of their Gleason score.
8 in EN2 levels according to genetic status or Gleason score.
9  were down-regulated in tumors with a higher Gleason score.
10 ntly affected by pathologic lesion volume or Gleason score.
11 maller lesions and is not affected by lesion Gleason score.
12 r confirmation is required with biopsies and Gleason score.
13 ely correlated with increased prostate tumor Gleason score.
14 ding T-stage, prostate-specific antigen, and Gleason score.
15 increase or decrease in primary or secondary Gleason score.
16 ated with the PSA level and original primary Gleason score.
17  for ERG staining was associated with higher Gleason score.
18  expression is directly correlated with high Gleason scores.
19  the clinical stages of prostate cancers and Gleason scores.
20  between the image features and ROI-specific Gleason scores.
21 tures correlate moderately with ROI-specific Gleason scores.
22 n system compared with clinical criteria and Gleason scores.
23 rmality is benign or malignant and to assign Gleason scores.
24 een found to correlate negatively with tumor Gleason scores.
25 poor outcome in patients with low or average Gleason scores.
26 s and the association between ADCs and tumor Gleason scores.
27 compared to normal tissue or tumors with low Gleason scores.
28  in the mutation rate was observed at higher Gleason scores.
29 erous sextants with higher rather than lower Gleason score (1.05+/-0.26 vs 0.89+/-0.20, P<.001).
30 an ADCs were inversely associated with tumor Gleason scores (1.10, 0.98, 0.87, and 0.75 for Gleason s
31 ically registered whole-mount histology with Gleason scoring, (11)C-choline, and ADC data (obtained a
32 teria for AS were tumor stage (all cohorts), Gleason score (12 cohorts), prostate-specific antigen (P
33 italier de l'Universite de Montreal) were of Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 (51%) while most of the specimen
34 ed on detection of low-risk prostate cancer (Gleason score 3 + 3 or low-volume 3 + 4) and the biopsy
35 ific antigen level of less than 10 ng/mL and Gleason score 3 + 3 tumors.
36 rsitaire de Quebec-Universite Laval) were of Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 (51% and 52%, respectively).
37 pathologic status) from prostate glands with Gleason score 3 + 4 versus 4 + 5 samples.
38 n, 80 clinically unimportant lesions (<5 mm; Gleason score, 3+3) were excluded.
39 rostate cancer (clinical stage T2a or lower; Gleason score, 3+3; index tumor </=10 mm(3)) underwent M
40 s a significantly more aggressive tumor than Gleason score 6 (GS6).
41 ad clinically localised disease (mostly T1c, Gleason score 6).
42 tive (Bx+) subjects from three institutions (Gleason scores: 6-9, Stage: T1-T3).
43                                              Gleason score 7 (GS7) prostate cancer [tumors with both
44 all cases (P = 0.013) and for a subset of 19 Gleason score 7 cases (P = 0.010), both of which were ad
45 large Gleason score 9 tumor with an adjacent Gleason score 7 nodule.
46 (P < 0.001), as well as for the subset of 42 Gleason score 7 patients (P < 0.001).
47 ignificantly predict clinical recurrence for Gleason score 7 patients.
48                                              Gleason score 7 prostate cancer with a higher proportion
49 between ISUP grades 2 and 3, as supports the Gleason score 7 subdivision.
50 th a lower RSG 3 percentage, even within the Gleason score 7 subset of patients.
51  with positive lymph node (PLN) count </= 2, Gleason score 7 to 10, pT3b/pT4 stage, or positive surgi
52 profiles of 74 patients with index tumors of Gleason score 7.
53 ), and intermediate-risk disease (T1-T2 with Gleason score, 7 and/or PSA, 10-20 ng/mL).
54  in the placebo group had high-grade cancer (Gleason score, 7 to 10) (relative risk, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.
55 ging (80.6% vs. 80.9%, P = 0.54), or primary Gleason score (77.9% for <=7 vs. 82.6% for >=8, P = 0.38
56 ificant high-grade and larger-volume tumors (Gleason score 8 and 9) with higher specificity than MR i
57 y include men with seminal vesicle invasion, Gleason score 8 to 10, extensive positive margins, and d
58            Risk was elevated for high-grade (Gleason score 8 to 10; RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.45) a
59 d in 1,703 men; 127 cancers were high-grade (Gleason score 8-10).
60                     Pathologic T3b/T4 stage, Gleason score 8-10, lymph node invasion, and Decipher sc
61 with lethality even among men with high-risk Gleason score 8-to-10 tumors.
62 tly predicted metastasis within 10 years was Gleason score (8-10 vs 5-7; OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.77-2.58; p
63 e-specific antigen was 15.1 ng/mL; 53% had a Gleason score 9 to 10 cancer; 27% had cT3 to cT4 disease
64  imaging, histologically composed of a large Gleason score 9 tumor with an adjacent Gleason score 7 n
65 e, lower pretherapeutic hemoglobin, a higher Gleason score, a higher number of platelets, higher C-re
66  cases, we identify two loci associated with Gleason score, a pathological measure of disease aggress
67 edict which patients will have a high biopsy Gleason score, a standard pathology score used to grade
68 tatistically associated with a high combined Gleason score, advanced stage, and prostate-specific ant
69                                              Gleason score, age, time since diagnosis, and prior trea
70                           PSA, PSA kinetics, Gleason score, age, time to biochemical relapse, ADT, an
71 thologic measure of malignancy, the surgical Gleason score, agrees better with these genomic paramete
72 Loss of this axis was associated with higher Gleason scores, an increased likelihood of metastatic an
73                     The influence of primary Gleason score and ADT was assessed.
74 ated with prostate tumor progression to high Gleason score and elevated PSA levels, and served as an
75 wn as JMJD2A) was positively correlated with Gleason score and metastasis in human prostate tumors.
76 erval, 2.2 to 13.1) than those with the same Gleason score and no predicted aneuploidy.
77 unx2 staining was positively correlated with Gleason score and occurrence of lymph node metastases wh
78 eased markers of disease aggressiveness (eg, Gleason score and pathological stage).
79              Based on a 6-segment model, the Gleason score and proportion of tumor tissue within each
80 nly slightly attenuated after adjustment for Gleason score and PSA at diagnosis (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.
81 stic biopsy than it does with the diagnostic Gleason score and related measures of diagnostic histopa
82 hat includes cell type adjustments and using Gleason score and the seven-gene signature has some util
83        This classification is independent of Gleason score and therefore provides useful unique molec
84 imens and its expression was correlated with Gleason scores and prostate-specific antigen recurrence.
85    Spearman correlation coefficients between Gleason scores and the ADC features were between -0.27 a
86 gery, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, Gleason score, and Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score.
87 retreatment prostate-specific antigen level, Gleason score, and clinical tumor stage for FFBF, and hy
88 influence of antihormonal treatment, primary Gleason score, and contribution of PET and morphologic i
89                    Depending on patient age, Gleason score, and number of comorbidities present at di
90 e variable analyses, pathologic tumor stage, Gleason score, and pre-SRT PSA were associated with BcR,
91 ostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, primary Gleason score, and prior therapy (androgen deprivation t
92 d with treatment response, whereas pT stage, Gleason score, and surgical margin status did not.
93 I, showed a significant correlation with the Gleason score, and the tumor SUV(max) was able to discri
94  of TMPRSS2:ERG fusions in relation to race, Gleason score, and tumor stage, combining results from G
95 erum prostate-specific antigen level, biopsy Gleason score, and year of treatment.
96 of the genes were low for non-cancer and low Gleason scores, and 6/6 known prostate cancer markers we
97 had higher prostate-specific antigen values, Gleason scores, and rates of extracapsular extension and
98  levels correlated with higher pT stages and Gleason scores, as well as with androgen (AR) and estrog
99           Neither technique was superior for Gleason score assessment.
100              Randomisation was stratified by Gleason score at diagnosis, region, and previous docetax
101  of pain medication, prior chemotherapy, and Gleason score at initial diagnosis).
102 ncer at MR imaging had a greater risk of the Gleason score being upgraded at subsequent biopsy (hazar
103 ameters, 10th percentile ADC correlated with Gleason score better than did other ADC parameters, sugg
104 ole-lesion histogram and correlated with the Gleason score by using the Spearman correlation coeffici
105 iated with prognostic factors including high Gleason score, clinical stage, prostate-specific antigen
106 s, clinically localized PCa, availability of Gleason score, data available for post-treatment PSA and
107  to the measure of prostatic malignancy, the Gleason score, derived from individual prostate biopsy t
108 imaging is significantly dependent on lesion Gleason score; detection of lesions of >/=1 cm3 is signi
109 r, a significant number of patients with low Gleason scores develop aggressive disease as well.
110              For lesions of >/=1 cm3, lesion Gleason score did not significantly affect sensitivity (
111 or stage for FFBF, and hypofractionation and Gleason score for PCaSS were significant prognostic vari
112 nical parameters (prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score) for pathologic EPE prediction by using th
113 6; at 24 months, three men had cancer with a Gleason score greater than 6.
114 h template biopsy, one man had cancer with a Gleason score greater than 6; at 24 months, three men ha
115                  For diagnosing cancers with Gleason scores greater than or equal to 7, the Likert sc
116 between benign and malignant tissue, between Gleason score (GS) </= 3 + 3 and GS >/= 3 + 4 tumors, an
117 ears were included; 599 patients (24%) had a Gleason score (GS) </= 6, 1,387 (56%) had a GS of 7, 244
118 nts to these decision rules, on detection of Gleason score (GS) 7 or greater (GS >/=7) prostate cance
119            ADC values were compared with the Gleason score (GS) after core needle biopsy (CNB) in pat
120 ion (rho) was calculated between cancer foci Gleason score (GS) and image features.
121 fied by (68)Ga-PSMA were correlated to their Gleason score (GS) at diagnosis.
122 risk prostate cancer (PC) within established Gleason score (GS) categories.
123                  An increase or 'upgrade' in Gleason Score (GS) in prostate cancer following Transrec
124               One case was downgraded from a Gleason score (GS) of 3 + 4 = 7 to a GS of 3 + 3 = 6.
125        To compare risks for upgrading from a Gleason score (GS) of 6 or less to 7 or more across AS s
126 dy was to explore the ability of the initial Gleason score (GS) to predict the rate of detection of r
127                             Correlation with Gleason score (GS) was evaluated with the Spearman rank
128 rent prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values, Gleason score (GS), and d'Amico risk classification.
129 hieved reasonably accurate classification of Gleason scores (GS) 6(3 + 3) vs. >/=7 and 7(3 + 4) vs. 7
130 he correlation of uptake within the gland to Gleason scores (GS) and assessment of the predictive pot
131 late biopsy results, including corresponding Gleason scores (GS), number of positive cores, and tumor
132 g (MRI) and have correlated this with grade (Gleason score; GS) and pathological staging (pT) of pros
133 n (PSA) (>0.2 ng/mL) and high-risk features (Gleason score &gt; 7, PSA doubling time < 10 mo, or PSA > 1
134  was recommended for biopsy progression (ie, Gleason score &gt; or = 7, or > 2 positive cores, or > 50%
135 primary endpoint definition (>/= 4 mm and/or Gleason score &gt;/= 3+4), sensitivity, negative predictive
136  for detection of high-risk prostate cancer (Gleason score &gt;/= 4 + 3); secondary end points focused o
137  are reclassified to a higher-risk category (Gleason score &gt;/= 7) or who have significant increases i
138 s (68.0%) had clinically significant cancer (Gleason score &gt;/= 7).
139 gnosed, 571 of which were aggressive (biopsy Gleason score &gt;/= 7, and/or clinical stage III or greate
140 %, P = 0.0381), but independent from primary Gleason score &gt;/= 8 (92.0%) versus </= 7 (90.2%, P = 0.6
141                            The proportion of Gleason score &gt;/= 8 decreased substantially less, from 2
142 gnosed with high-risk cancers (>/= T3 and/or Gleason score &gt;/= 8), postdiagnosis daily aspirin use wa
143  0.91; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.07 for cancers with Gleason score &gt;/= 8).
144 Clinically significant cancer was defined as Gleason score &gt;/=4 + 3 or a maximum cancer core length 6
145 ow-grade (Gleason score <7), and high-grade (Gleason score &gt;/=7) prostate cancer incidence.
146 sitively related to incidence of high-grade (Gleason score &gt;/=7) tumors (rate ratioQ5-Q1 = 3.92; 95%
147 gressive and 273 aggressive (stage III/IV or Gleason score &gt;/=7)) and 1,398 controls.
148 nostic factors, such as Gleason grade 4 + 3, Gleason score &gt;/=7, vascular infiltration, and positive
149                          The prevalence of a Gleason score &gt;/=8, higher pathologic T stage, and bioch
150 gnificant PCa (SPCa), which was defined as a Gleason score &gt;= 3 + 4 (Gleason grade group 2 or higher)
151 cers and noncancers, clinically significant (Gleason score &gt;= 7) cancers from clinically insignifican
152  higher grade vs lower grade primary tumors (Gleason score &gt;=4+3 vs <3+4).
153 TC+/AR-V7+ patients were more likely to have Gleason scores &gt;/= 8 ( P = .05), metastatic disease at d
154 ncer versus normal tissue and correlate with Gleason scores &gt;/=7.
155 tivity for discriminating PCa between higher Gleason score (&gt;/=7) and lower Gleason score (<7) was 0.
156 io, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00-1.05; P = 0.037), and Gleason score (&gt;7: hazard ratio, 2.49; 95% CI, 1.25-4.95
157 ] for Gleason score</=6 vs 0.82 and 0.92 for Gleason score&gt;/=7; P>/=.07).
158 ine positive biopsy findings (size, >/=3 mm; Gleason score, &gt;/=6) were identified in 68 patients.
159  survival benefits from treating aggressive (Gleason score, &gt;/=7) early-stage prostate cancer are und
160 e plasminogen activator receptor (uPAR), and Gleason score in patients undergoing prostate biopsy.
161 benign hyperplasia, and correlated with high Gleason score in PCa patients.
162 related with advanced tumor stage and higher Gleason score in PCa specimens.
163 GF-beta signaling was associated with higher Gleason scores in archived human biopsies, mirroring mur
164 or ADCs were inversely associated with tumor Gleason scores in the transition zone.
165                                         High Gleason score is currently the best prognostic indicator
166                                          The Gleason score is currently the most powerful prognostic
167 ive treatment practices whereby cases with a Gleason score lower than 7 and clinical T2a stage cancer
168  .001), stage less than T2b (P = .0111), and Gleason score &lt; 7 (P = .0098).
169 sk tumor characteristics (PSA < 10 ng/mL and Gleason score &lt; 7), and 89.2% underwent active treatment
170 ance (ie, PSA density < 0.15 ng/mL/cm(3) and Gleason score &lt; or = 6 with no pattern > or = 4, involvi
171             For most patients with low-risk (Gleason score &lt;/= 6) localized prostate cancer, active s
172 intermediate-risk prostate cancer (T1 to 2a, Gleason score &lt;/= 6, and prostate-specific antigen [PSA]
173  < 0.15 ng/mL, and prostate biopsy findings (Gleason score &lt;/= 6, two or fewer cores with cancer, and
174 ic antigen level <10 microg/L, stage </=T2a, Gleason score &lt;/=3 + 3).
175 prostate specific antigen [PSA] </=15 ng/mL, Gleason score &lt;/=4 + 3, stage </=T2), with no previous a
176 cy was poor in small (<0.5 cc) or low-grade (Gleason score &lt;/=6) tumors, with a tendency toward overe
177 -risk disease (clinical stage </=T2a, biopsy Gleason score &lt;/=6, and prostate-specific antigen level
178                            Total, low-grade (Gleason score &lt;7), and high-grade (Gleason score >/=7) p
179      Patients with newly diagnosed LPCa with Gleason score &lt;= 7, clinical stage T1b to T3a, and prost
180                                    In higher Gleason score (&lt;/=7 vs. >/=8), detection efficacy was si
181 etween higher Gleason score (>/=7) and lower Gleason score (&lt;7) was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.93-0.98) and 0.90
182                        In tumors with higher Gleason scores (&lt;=7 vs. >=8), detection efficacy trended
183 inically low-risk prostate cancer (cT1-cT2a, Gleason score&lt;/=6 at biopsy, prostate-specific antigen [
184 ity (0.83 [reader 1] and 1.00 [reader 2] for Gleason score&lt;/=6 vs 0.82 and 0.92 for Gleason score>/=7
185 49-70 years) with localized prostate cancer (Gleason score&lt;/=7, prostate-specific antigen level #15 m
186 h low-risk prostate (clinical stage T1c/T2a; Gleason score, &lt;/=6; and prostate-specific antigen level
187  all men in the very-low-risk group) (T1-T2; Gleason score, &lt;/=6; and PSA, <10 ng/mL), and intermedia
188 of the low-risk group) (clinical stage, T1c; Gleason score, &lt;/=6; prostate-specific antigen [PSA], <1
189 prostate-specific antigen [PSA], <=15 ng/mL; Gleason score, &lt;=3 + 4; clinical stage, <=T2c; lesion si
190                  Stratification factors were Gleason score, margin status, planned radiotherapy sched
191 rent prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, Gleason scores, marital statuses and bone metastasis sta
192 significantly associated with a higher tumor Gleason score (mean ADCs of [1.21, 1.10, 0.87, and 0.69]
193 in prostate tumors is associated with higher Gleason score, metastasis, and CRPC progression.
194  proNGF level positively correlated with the Gleason score (n = 104, tauB = 0.51).
195 ine PET/CT positivity and initial treatment, Gleason score, National Comprehensive Cancer Network sta
196 ine PET/CT positivity and initial treatment, Gleason score, NCCN stage, PSA level, PSA doubling time,
197                                     Results: Gleason score, number of removed LNs, and subregions for
198      The correlation between the SUV and the Gleason score obtained by biopsy was assessed.
199 nificantly higher in prostate cancers with a Gleason score of >/=3 + 4 than with a Gleason score of <
200 evel of proNGF was observed in tumors with a Gleason score of >/=8 compared with a Gleason score of 7
201  with a Gleason score of 7, and three with a Gleason score of >/=8) and five nonneoplastic prostate s
202 higher-grade and lower-grade primary tumors (Gleason score of >=4 + 3 vs. <3 + 4).
203 o of the three high-risk prognostic factors (Gleason score of >=8, presence of three or more lesions
204 with a Gleason score of >/=3 + 4 than with a Gleason score of </=3 + 3 disease and controls.
205 .69] x 10(-3) mm(2)/sec were associated with Gleason score of 3 + 3, 3 + 4, 4 + 3, and 8 or higher, r
206 ith prostate adenocarcinoma (three patients, Gleason score of 3 + 4; and three patients, Gleason scor
207 y a majority of readers yielded tumor with a Gleason score of 3+4 or greater in 45.9% (17 of 37), wit
208 (17 of 37), without missing any tumor with a Gleason score of 3+4 or greater.
209 that sector to be deemed positive was set at Gleason score of 3+4 or more and/or cancer core length i
210  stage pT2a, intermediate-risk cancer with a Gleason score of 3+4) and caused 11 additional false-pos
211  Gleason score of 3 + 4; and three patients, Gleason score of 4 + 5) was performed across 23 spatiall
212 arameter to help differentiate tumors with a Gleason score of 6 from those with a Gleason score of at
213 Az values for differentiating lesions with a Gleason score of 6 from those with a Gleason score of at
214 ific antigen of 6 ng/mL or less, and 94% had Gleason score of 6 or less.
215 re differentially expressed in tumors with a Gleason score of 6 to 7 versus >/=8.
216  of 18 prostate cancer samples (seven with a Gleason score of 6, eight with a Gleason score of 7, and
217                 Seventy sextants exhibited a Gleason score of 6; 51 exhibited a Gleason score of 7 or
218 biopsy-proved prostate cancer, with a median Gleason score of 7 (range, 6-9).
219 with a Gleason score of >/=8 compared with a Gleason score of 7 and 6 (P < 0.001).
220 hibited a Gleason score of 6; 51 exhibited a Gleason score of 7 or 8.
221           Presence of prostate cancer having Gleason score of 7 or higher on prostate biopsy.
222      This accuracy was good in tumors with a Gleason score of 7 or higher or a Likert score of 5, wit
223 ific antigen alone for detecting cancer with Gleason score of 7 or higher.
224 tate cancer was performed in patients with a Gleason score of 7 or less in three or fewer cores limit
225  needle biopsy, there were 220 tumors with a Gleason score of 7 to 10 among 3299 men in the dutasteri
226 even with a Gleason score of 6, eight with a Gleason score of 7, and three with a Gleason score of >/
227 ne risk factor (pathological T-stage 3 or 4, Gleason score of 7-10, positive margins, or preoperative
228 rials and most patients (1671 [77.6%]) had a Gleason score of 7.
229 g years 3 and 4, there were 12 tumors with a Gleason score of 8 to 10 in the dutasteride group, as co
230  than 40 mug/L or PSA of 20 to 40 mug/L plus Gleason score of 8 to 10 were randomly assigned to lifel
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 .88 (95% CI, 0.67-1.00) for discriminating a Gleason score of greater than or equal to 3 + 4 from a G
240  detection of primary prostate cancer with a Gleason score of greater than or equal to 3 + 4 in men w
241  detection of primary prostate cancer with a Gleason score of greater than or equal to 3 + 4 in men w
242  detection of primary prostate cancer with a Gleason score of greater than or equal to 3 + 4 is cost-
243 specificity of 75% (30%-95%) for detecting a Gleason score of greater than or equal to 3 + 4.
244                         For discriminating a Gleason score of greater than or equal to 4 + 3 from a G
245  cutoff could be established for detecting a Gleason score of greater than or equal to 4 + 3 with a s
246 ore of greater than or equal to 3 + 4 from a Gleason score of less than or equal to 3 + 3.
247 ore of greater than or equal to 4 + 3 from a Gleason score of less than or equal to 3 + 4, a cutoff c
248 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
249 ly significant differences among tumors with Gleason scores of 6, 7, and >/=8.
250 scheduled to undergo prostatectomy; they had Gleason scores of 7-10 and a mean prostate-specific anti
251 y set of ten tumor/normal subject pairs with Gleason scores of 8-10 at diagnosis, coordinated analysi
252 >50% clinical prostate cancer specimens with Gleason scores of 8-9 (n=11), which is associated with p
253 alphaDG subunit inversely correlate with the Gleason scores of prostate cancers; furthermore, we show
254 tep-section histopathologic examination, and Gleason scores of the tumors were recorded.
255 n was not associated with age, baseline PSA, Gleason score, or tumor volume.
256 ated dose or type of statin, clinical stage, Gleason score, or with prediagnosis statin use; however,
257  Nuclear expression of Kaiso correlates with Gleason score (P < 0.001) and tumor grade (P < 0.001).
258 ing PSA, T stage, surgical margin status, or Gleason score (P < 0.002).
259 ding PSA, T-stage, surgical margin status or Gleason score (P < 0.002).
260 e) analysis, tumor Likert score (P < .0001), Gleason score (P = .009), and Vh (P < .0001) significant
261 cal parameters of prostate cancer, including Gleason score (P = .29).
262 no correlation between the SUVmax of PCA and Gleason score (P = 0.54).
263 SA) at diagnosis (P for trend < .001), lower Gleason score (P for trend < .001), and less advanced tu
264 lue over standard prognostic markers such as Gleason score, pathologic tumor stage, surgical margin s
265 static progression, with variables including Gleason score, preoperative prostate-specific antigen co
266 x) was able to discriminate between low-risk Gleason score profiles and intermediate risk Gleason sco
267 Gleason score profiles and intermediate risk Gleason score profiles with a high diagnostic accuracy.
268 en (PSA) doubling time of less than 3 years, Gleason score progression, or unequivocal clinical progr
269  patients who had not had radiotherapy using Gleason score, prostate-specific antigen concentration,
270                          Results: The median Gleason score, PSA level at imaging, and PSA doubling ti
271 and that its expression correlates with high Gleason score, pT and pN stages, and biochemical recurre
272 aled that FDPS is associated with increasing Gleason score, PTEN functionally deficient status, and p
273 ake in tumors was positively correlated with Gleason score (rho = 0.64; PSMA expression, rho = 0.47;
274  (Spearman rho [rho], range, -0.07 to 0.24), Gleason score (rho, range, 0.03 to 0.20), prostate-speci
275 pre-HIFU PSA level and favourable pathologic Gleason score seem to present better oncologic outcomes.
276 ive correlation between the SUV(max) and the Gleason score (Spearman rho = 0.55; P = 0.003).
277                      Further controlling for Gleason score, stage, age and to maintain equal number o
278 e, year, race, comorbidity score, PSA level, Gleason score, T stage, N stage, chemotherapy administra
279 especially drastic in metastatic and/or high Gleason score tumor samples.
280 cluded older age, comorbid conditions, lower Gleason score, tumor stage, PSA concentration, and favor
281 y associated with lower risk of biopsy-based Gleason score upgrade (hazard ratio per 1-year decrease,
282 ve of cancer may confer an increased risk of Gleason score upgrade at subsequent biopsy.
283 sociated with decreased risk of biopsy-based Gleason score upgrade during AS but not with risk of def
284 association of age with risk of biopsy-based Gleason score upgrade during AS.
285               The 3- and 5-year biopsy-based Gleason score upgrade-free rates were 73% and 55%, respe
286 ssess time to cancer progression, defined as Gleason score upgrading, prostate-specific antigen veloc
287 s with positive SB and TB results, TB led to Gleason score upgrading.
288 h tracers and corrected our calculations for Gleason scores using iterative matched-pair analyses.
289 1] and 0.61 [reader 2]) rather than when the Gleason score was >/=7 (0.73, P=.02 [reader 1]; and 0.84
290 ies were significantly lower when the lesion Gleason score was </=6 (0.44 [reader 1] and 0.61 [reader
291 of lethal disease beyond knowing whether the Gleason score was 4 + 3 or 3 + 4 (P = .006).
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 d marital status, lower PSA levels and lower Gleason scores were better prognostic factors in PCa.
297                                              Gleason scores were not assigned in the suspected recurr
298 ng quality (mean longest core cancer length, Gleason score) were compared.
299 d morphology is an integral component of the Gleason score which enables discrimination between prost
300 A proportion of men experience an upgrade in Gleason score while undergoing active surveillance.

 
Page Top