The University of Chicago Header Logo

Connection

Gladell P. Paner to Prostatic Neoplasms

Back to Details
This is a "connection" page, showing publications Gladell P. Paner has written about Prostatic Neoplasms.
Gladell P. Paner
Connection Strength
4.716
Prostatic Neoplasms
  1. Point-Counterpoint: Grade Group 1 (Gleason Score 6) Prostate Cancer Should Be Renamed to Improve Public Health: Pathologists' Perspective. J Urol. 2023 07; 210(1):23-25.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.390
  2. Incorporating Prognostic Biomarkers into Risk Assessment Models and TNM Staging for Prostate Cancer. Cells. 2020 09 17; 9(9).
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.325
  3. Editorial Comment. J Urol. 2020 08; 204(2):265-266.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.318
  4. Essential Updates in Grading, Morphotyping, Reporting, and Staging of Prostate Carcinoma for General Surgical Pathologists. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2019 05; 143(5):550-564.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.293
  5. Spectrum of Cystic Epithelial Tumors of the Prostate: Most Cystadenocarcinomas Are Ductal Type With Intracystic Papillary Pattern. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016 07; 40(7):886-95.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.243
  6. Non-epithelial neoplasms of the prostate. Histopathology. 2012 Jan; 60(1):166-86.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.178
  7. Best practice in diagnostic immunohistochemistry: prostate carcinoma and its mimics in needle core biopsies. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008 Sep; 132(9):1388-96.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.141
  8. Histological sampling protocols for transurethral resection of prostate specimens need reappraisal. Histopathology. 2024 Nov; 85(5):746-747.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.107
  9. The Impact of Inherited Genetic Variation on DNA Methylation in Prostate Cancer and Benign Tissues of African American and European American Men. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2024 Apr 03; 33(4):557-566.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.104
  10. NKX3.1 Expression in Non-Prostatic Tumors and Characterizing its Expression in Esophageal/Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma. Adv Anat Pathol. 2024 May 01; 31(3):202-205.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.104
  11. The influence of the "cancer" label on perceptions and management decisions for low-grade prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2023 11 08; 115(11):1364-1373.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.101
  12. Physician Perception of Grade Group 1 Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol Focus. 2023 11; 9(6):966-973.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.097
  13. Blood Prostate-specific Antigen by Volume of Benign, Gleason Pattern 3 and 4 Prostate Tissue. Urology. 2022 12; 170:154-160.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.093
  14. Low-Grade Prostate Cancer: Time to Stop Calling It Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2022 09 20; 40(27):3110-3114.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.091
  15. SOX2 mediates metabolic reprogramming of prostate cancer cells. Oncogene. 2022 Feb; 41(8):1190-1202.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.089
  16. Histological validation of prostate tissue composition measurement using hybrid multi-dimensional MRI: agreement with pathologists' measures. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2022 02; 47(2):801-813.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.088
  17. Multi-Site Concordance of Diffusion-Weighted Imaging Quantification for Assessing Prostate Cancer Aggressiveness. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2022 06; 55(6):1745-1758.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.088
  18. Prostate cancer: a presentation of clinicopathologic prognosticators among Filipino and American men at radical prostatectomy. Asian J Androl. 2021 Sep-Oct; 23(5):516-519.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.087
  19. Seminal vesicle cystadenoma with dysplasia: missing link to adenocarcinoma? Histopathology. 2021 08; 79(2):274-276.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.086
  20. Should Grade Group 1 (GG1) be called cancer? World J Urol. 2022 Jan; 40(1):15-19.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.083
  21. Similarities and Differences in the 2019 ISUP and GUPS Recommendations on Prostate Cancer Grading: A Guide for Practicing Pathologists. Adv Anat Pathol. 2021 Jan; 28(1):1-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.083
  22. The 2019 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2020 08; 44(8):e87-e99.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.081
  23. Reporting Practices and Resource Utilization in the Era of Intraductal Carcinoma of the Prostate: A Survey of Genitourinary Subspecialists. Am J Surg Pathol. 2020 05; 44(5):673-680.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.079
  24. Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate is an aggressive form of invasive carcinoma and should be graded. Pathology. 2020 Feb; 52(2):192-196.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.077
  25. MEIS1 and MEIS2 Expression and Prostate Cancer Progression: A Role For HOXB13 Binding Partners in Metastatic Disease. Clin Cancer Res. 2018 08 01; 24(15):3668-3680.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.069
  26. Genomic Heterogeneity Within Individual Prostate Cancer Foci Impacts Predictive Biomarkers of Targeted Therapy. Eur Urol Focus. 2019 05; 5(3):416-424.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.068
  27. The New Realization About Cribriform Prostate Cancer. Adv Anat Pathol. 2018 Jan; 25(1):31-37.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.067
  28. Integrative Genomic Analysis of Coincident Cancer Foci Implicates CTNNB1 and PTEN Alterations in Ductal Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol Focus. 2019 05; 5(3):433-442.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.067
  29. Prostate cancer detection following diagnosis of atypical small acinar proliferation. Can J Urol. 2017 Apr; 24(2):8714-8720.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.064
  30. Influence of pathologist experience on positive surgical margins following radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol. 2017 07; 35(7):461.e1-461.e6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.064
  31. Circulating tumor cells capture disease evolution in advanced prostate cancer. J Transl Med. 2017 02 23; 15(1):44.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.063
  32. Extraprostatic Extension Is Extremely Rare for Contemporary Gleason Score 6 Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol. 2017 09; 72(3):455-460.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.063
  33. Prognostic Significance of Percentage and Architectural Types of Contemporary Gleason Pattern 4 Prostate Cancer in Radical Prostatectomy. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016 10; 40(10):1400-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.062
  34. Risk of lymph node metastases in pathological gleason score=6 prostate adenocarcinoma: Analysis of institutional and population-based databases. Urol Oncol. 2017 01; 35(1):31.e1-31.e6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.062
  35. Diagnosis of "Poorly Formed Glands" Gleason Pattern 4 Prostatic Adenocarcinoma on Needle Biopsy: An Interobserver Reproducibility Study Among Urologic Pathologists With Recommendations. Am J Surg Pathol. 2015 Oct; 39(10):1331-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.058
  36. Diagnosis of Gleason pattern 5 prostate adenocarcinoma on core needle biopsy: an interobserver reproducibility study among urologic pathologists. Am J Surg Pathol. 2015 Sep; 39(9):1242-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.057
  37. Contemporary Population-Based Comparison of Localized Ductal Adenocarcinoma and High-Risk Acinar Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate. Urology. 2015 Oct; 86(4):777-82.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.057
  38. Aire-dependent thymic development of tumor-associated regulatory T cells. Science. 2013 Mar 08; 339(6124):1219-24.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.048
  39. Sox2 is an androgen receptor-repressed gene that promotes castration-resistant prostate cancer. PLoS One. 2013; 8(1):e53701.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.048
  40. Validation of new AJCC exclusion criteria for subepithelial prostatic stromal invasion from pT4a bladder urothelial carcinoma. J Urol. 2013 Jan; 189(1):53-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.047
  41. Immunohistochemical profile to distinguish urothelial from squamous differentiation in carcinomas of urothelial tract. Hum Pathol. 2013 Feb; 44(2):164-72.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.047
  42. Predictors of Gleason Score (GS) upgrading on subsequent prostatectomy: a single Institution study in a cohort of patients with GS 6. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2012; 5(6):496-502.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.046
  43. Deregulation of a Hox protein regulatory network spanning prostate cancer initiation and progression. Clin Cancer Res. 2012 Aug 15; 18(16):4291-302.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.046
  44. Fyn is downstream of the HGF/MET signaling axis and affects cellular shape and tropism in PC3 cells. Clin Cancer Res. 2011 May 15; 17(10):3112-22.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.042
  45. Comparison of open and robot-assisted pelvic lymphadenectomy for prostate cancer. J Endourol. 2009 Aug; 23(8):1313-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.038
  46. Morphometric signature differences in nuclei of Gleason pattern 4 areas in Gleason 7 prostate cancer with differing primary grades on needle biopsy. J Urol. 2009 Jan; 181(1):88-93; discussion 93-4.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.036
  47. Identification of patients with low-risk for aneuploidy: comparative discriminatory models using linear and machine-learning classifiers in prostate cancer. Prostate. 2007 Oct 01; 67(14):1524-36.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.033
  48. Morphometric sum optical density as a surrogate marker for ploidy status in prostate cancer: an analysis in 180 biopsies using logistic regression and binary recursive partitioning. Virchows Arch. 2006 Sep; 449(3):302-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.031
  49. Gastrointestinal stromal tumor: involvement in urologic patients and recent therapeutic advances. Urology. 2002 Aug; 60(2):218-22.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.006
  50. A carcinosarcoma/sarcomatoid carcinoma arising in a urinary bladder diverticulum. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2002 Jul; 126(7):853-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.006
Connection Strength

The connection strength for concepts is the sum of the scores for each matching publication.

Publication scores are based on many factors, including how long ago they were written and whether the person is a first or senior author.