1988
DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(88)90569-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Urology and the TNM Classification

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

1989
1989
1998
1998

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…1). 27 Superficial cancers are papillary tumors confined to the mucosa (Ta), papillary (and occasionally nodular) tumors that infiltrate the lamina propria (T1), and nonexophytic diatheses known as carcinoma in situ that replace or undermine the normal mucosa and involve focal or diffuse areas of the urothelium (Tis) (see Fig. 4, p. 277).…”
Section: Biology and Staging Of Bladder Cancermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1). 27 Superficial cancers are papillary tumors confined to the mucosa (Ta), papillary (and occasionally nodular) tumors that infiltrate the lamina propria (T1), and nonexophytic diatheses known as carcinoma in situ that replace or undermine the normal mucosa and involve focal or diffuse areas of the urothelium (Tis) (see Fig. 4, p. 277).…”
Section: Biology and Staging Of Bladder Cancermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The explosion of imaging technology and new biologi cal markers, especially prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was, however, difficult to match with the need for simpli fication and it took the joint efforts of the European Orga nization for Research and Treatment of Cancer's Urologi cal Group and the Society of Urological Oncology to influence the second revision, which is still not perfect and never will be for the individual patient, but resulted in a system that is now universally accepted by all major urological clinical groups [4], The positive criticism from the MRC working party in urological cancer and from J. Montie [unpublished information] proved to be essential for a workable tumor classification and proposed stage grouping [5], The classification universally accepted is represented in table 1.…”
Section: Tnm Systemmentioning
confidence: 99%