The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma
By Jonathan I. Epstein, W. Allsbrook, M. Amin, L. Egevad. American Journal of Surgical Pathology, 2005
2,866 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine, Rheumatology
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8f7bb9b751da9ede977395630b4482df634c38be
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
In Rheumatology
Citations in the corpus
- Upgrading and Downgrading of Prostate Cancer from Biopsy to Radical Prostatectomy: Incidence and Predictive Factors Using the Modified Gleason Grading System and Factoring in Tertiary Grades (2012, positive): “Publis the current article led a consensus on updating the Gleason grading system, published in 2005 [2].”
- EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2024 Update. Part I: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. (2024, positive): “The ISUP 2005 Gleason score (GS) together with its 2014 and 2019 modifications is the recommended PCa grading system [15,16].”
- 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 (2015, methodology): “Following discussion at the 2014 Chicago grading meeting, there was a proposal for the adoption of this new prostate cancer Grading system based on the observations that: (1) the new classification provided more accurate stratification of tumors than the current system; (2) the classification simpli”
- A 17-gene assay to predict prostate cancer aggressiveness in the context of Gleason grade heterogeneity, tumor multifocality, and biopsy undersampling. (2014, background): “Prostatectomy specimens were centrally reviewed for primary, secondary, and tertiary Gleason patterns, overall Gleason score, and pathologic T stage [27].”
- Cascaded discrimination of normal, abnormal, and confounder classes in histopathology: Gleason grading of prostate cancer (2012, background): “Manual analysis of cancer is limited due to several factors: (1) The subjective, qualitative nature of Gleason grading leads to a high degree of inter-observer variability [8].”
- Deep neural network models for computational histopathology: A survey (2019, background): “Over the last 50 years, several scoring systems have been proposed that allow pathologists to grade tumours based on their appearance, for example, the Gleason score for prostate cancer (Epstein et al., 2005) and the Nottingham score for”
- Genetics and biology of prostate cancer (2018, methodology): “…grading system, which was originally defined by Donald Gleason (Gleason andMellinger 1974) based on histological patterns of prostate adenocarcinoma, has been refined over the years and is the most widely used grading system defining prostate cancer aggressiveness (Epstein et al. 2005, 2016).”