SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

REFERENCES

  • 1
    Shepherd JH. Revised FIGO staging for gynaecological cancer. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1989; 96: 889892.
  • 2
    Grigsby PW, Perez CA, Kuten A, et al. Clinical Stage I endometrial cancer: prognostic factors for local control and distant metastasis and implications of the new FIGO surgical staging system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1992; 22: 905911.
  • 3
    Creutzberg CL, van Putten WL, Koper PC, et al. Surgery and postoperative radiotherapy versus surgery alone for patients with Stage-1 endometrial carcinoma: multicentre randomised trial. PORTEC Study Group. Post Operative Radiation Therapy in Endometrial Carcinoma. Lancet. 2000; 355: 14041411.
  • 4
    Carey MS, O'Connell GJ, Johanson CR, et al. Good outcome associated with a standardized treatment protocol using selective postoperative radiation in patients with clinical Stage I adenocarcinoma of the endometrium. Gynecol Oncol. 1995; 57: 138144.
  • 5
    Scholten AN, Creutzberg CL, Noordijk EM, Smit VT. Long-term outcome in endometrial carcinoma favors a two- instead of a three-tiered grading system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002; 52: 10671074.
  • 6
    Lax SF, Kurman RJ, Pizer ES, Wu L, Ronnett BM. A binary architectural grading system for uterine endometrial endometrioid carcinoma has superior reproducibility compared with FIGO grading and identifies subsets of advance-stage tumors with favorable and unfavorable prognosis. Am J Surg Pathol. 2000; 24: 12011208.
  • 7
    Kurman RJ. Endometrial carcinoma. In: KurmanRJ, editor. Blaustein's pathology of the female genital tract (4th edition). New York: Springer-Verlag, 1994: 439486.
  • 8
    Fleiss JL. The measurement of interrater agreement. In: FleissJL, editor. Statistical methods for rates and proportions (2nd edition). New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1981: 212236.
  • 9
    Zaino RJ, Silverberg SG, Norris HJ, Bundy BN, Morrow CP, Okagaki T. The prognostic value of nuclear versus architectural grading in endometrial adenocarcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1994; 13: 2936.
  • 10
    Nielsen AL, Thomsen HK, Nyholm HC. Evaluation of the reproducibility of the revised 1988 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics grading system of endometrial cancers with special emphasis on nuclear grading. Cancer. 1991; 68: 23032309.
  • 11
    Taylor RR, Zeller J, Lieberman RW, O'Connor DM. An analysis of two versus three grades for endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 1999; 74: 36.
  • 12
    Christopherson WM, Connelly PJ, Alberhasky RC. Carcinoma of the endometrium. V. An analysis of prognosticators in patients with favorable subtypes and Stage I disease. Cancer. 1983; 51: 17051709.