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

By Jonathan I. Epstein, L. Egevad, M. Amin, B. Delahunt, J. Srigley, P. Humphrey. American Journal of Surgical Pathology, 2015

2,538 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Development and validation of a deep learning algorithm for improving Gleason scoring of prostate cancer (2018, unknown): “All slides were reviewed in a manner consistent with ISUP 2014 and CAP guidelines with no time constraint.(4,38)”
A Contemporary Prostate Cancer Grading System: A Validated Alternative to the Gleason Score (2015, background): “While retaining the practice of combining the two most common patterns, there have been many changes, first codified in 2005 and more recently at a 2014 conference of experts [2,3].”
Artificial intelligence for diagnosis and Gleason grading of prostate cancer: the PANDA challenge (2022, unknown): “GG 5 973 (19) 251 (5) 27 (14) 16 (8) 41 (12) 21 (10) 27 (4) 26 (8) 1,382 (11)”
The 2016 WHO Classification of Tumours of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs-Part B: Prostate and Bladder Tumours. (2016, methodology): “3) is presented in the ISUP publication [23] and in the 2016 WHO blue book [1].”
EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. (2017, methodology): “And yet the population-based European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) showed a reduction in PCa mortality in the screening arm (RR: 0.8; 95% CI, 0.65–0.98) after a median follow-up of 9 yr.”