Epithelioma of the Genitourinary Organs

Broders,

doi:10.1097/00000441-192211000-00014

Cited by 19 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Histological grade, which is closely related to stage, is regarded as another important determinant [1,17], Survival also depends on the degree of lymphatic and vascular invasion, growth pattern, mode of local spread [10,13,18,20] and lymph node métastasés [5], Chromo somal abnormalities [27] and localization of such immu nohistochemical markers as ABH antigens and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) [22,32] have recently been investigated in relation to prognosis of bladder cancer patients. Combinations of surgical excision, chemother apy, immunotherapy and radiation are currently prac ticed to improve survival.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multivariate Evaluation of Prognostic Determinants in Bladder Cancer Patients

Takashi¹,

Murase²,

Mizuno

et al. 1987

Urol Int

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To clarify the relative importance of factors affecting the survival of patients with bladder cancer, a multivariate analysis by Cox’s proportional hazards model was performed on 264 patients initially treated from 1973 to 1984 at Nagoya University Hospital. Clinicopathological data included in the analysis were sex, age, symptoms, interval from onset of symptoms to first consultation, smoking history and tumor characteristics (location, size, number, shape, histoiogicai grade and stage). The analysis revealed that stage is the most statistically significant determinant for survival, followed by size, irritative symptoms, age and grade in this order. The model composed of the above five determinants yielded hazard ratios of: 4.6 for stage (pT₂––pT₄ vs. pT_a––pT₁); 3.1 for size ( > 3 vs. ≤ 3 cm); 2.5 for irritative bladder symptoms (present vs. absent); 2.7 for age (70 years or more vs. younger), and 2.1 for grade (high grade vs. low grade tumors). We conclude that these findings quantitatively confirm previous clinical impressions that accurate staging of the tumors is most important for improving the prognosis of bladder cancer patients, and that each of the above five determinants should be considered when planning an effective initial treatment regimen.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multivariate Evaluation of Prognostic Determinants in Bladder Cancer Patients

Takashi¹,

Murase²,

Mizuno

et al. 1987

Urol Int

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A radical cystectomy was performed if no response was noted. Tumour assessment was by the TNM system (UICC, 1978) and graded according to the classification system of Broders (1922).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Limited Usefulness of External Beam Radiotherapy in the Control of Superficial Bladder Cancer

Sawczuk

Olsson

White

1988

British Journal of Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Thirty-seven patients with superficial bladder cancer (Ta, T1) who failed local control were treated with external beam radiotherapy: 22 received full dose radiotherapy without interval cystoscopic monitoring and 15 followed a protocol in an attempt to select a subgroup of radiosensitive tumours. Both the unselected and protocol treated patients demonstrated the limited usefulness of external beam radiotherapy in the treatment of superficial bladder cancer.

show abstract

“…Broders [5] -based on proportion of undifferentiated tumor areas 1950s. Franksson [9] (Scandinavia) -based on invasion 1966.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The WHO/ISUP 1998 and WHO 1999 systems for malignancy grading of bladder cancer. Scientific foundation and translation to one another and previous systems

Busch

Algaba

2002

Virchows Arch

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, two new classification systems for grading of urothelial neoplasms have been published. The objective of both was to avoid the overdiagnosis of cancer and to create better criteria for the grades. The WHO/ISUP classification of 1998 distinguishes papilloma, papillary urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential (PUNLMP), low and high grade carcinomas, whereas the WHO 1999 system subdivides the high grade into grades II and III, and is otherwise identical. This note summarizes studies supporting the rationale of the two new systems, describes pattern recognition criteria for the grades, and highlights the homology between them.

show abstract

Epithelioma of the Genitourinary Organs

Cited by 19 publications

References 0 publications

Multivariate Evaluation of Prognostic Determinants in Bladder Cancer Patients

Multivariate Evaluation of Prognostic Determinants in Bladder Cancer Patients

The Limited Usefulness of External Beam Radiotherapy in the Control of Superficial Bladder Cancer

The WHO/ISUP 1998 and WHO 1999 systems for malignancy grading of bladder cancer. Scientific foundation and translation to one another and previous systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About