Should Pathologists Continue to Use the Current pT2 Substaging System for Reporting of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens?

International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology - Brazil
doi 10.1590/s1677-55382010000200020
Full Text
Abstract

Available in full text

Categories
MedicineUrology
Date
Authors
Publisher

FapUNIFESP (SciELO)

Related search

The Handling and Sampling of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens for Reporting and Research: The Oxford Approach

Journal of Clinical Pathology
MedicineForensic MedicinePathology
2012English

The Use of IIEF-5 for Reporting Erectile Dysfunction Following Nerve-Sparing Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy

The Open Prostate Cancer Journal
2009English

Handling of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens: Total or Partial Embedding?

Histopathology
MedicineForensic MedicinePathologyHistology
2011English

Radical Prostatectomy Specimens - A Voice Against Focal Therapy

Central European Journal of Urology
Urology
2014English

Current View on Nerve-Sparing Radical Prostatectomy

Onkourologiya
OncologyRadiologyUrologyNuclear MedicineNephrologyImagingSurgery
2019English

Should Pathologists Talk to Patients?

BMJ
1990English

Gleason Score Correlation Between Prostate Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Specimens

Üroonkoloji Bülteni
2018English

Use of Whole Mount Sections for Reporting Mammographic Specimens.

Journal of Clinical Pathology
MedicineForensic MedicinePathology
1991English

Erratum To: Radical Prostatectomy

2018English

Amanote Research

Note-taking for researchers

Follow Amanote

© 2024 Amaplex Software S.P.R.L. All rights reserved.

Privacy PolicyRefund Policy