BosmanFT. The nuclear matrix in pathology. Virchows Arch.1999; 435: 391–399.
2.
TangJ, NiuJW, XuDH, LiZX, LiQF, ChenJA. Alteration of nuclear matrix-intermediate filament system and differential expression of nuclear matrix proteins during human hepatocarcinoma cell differentiation. World J Gastroenterol.2007; 13: 2791–2797.
3.
FuhrmanSA, LaskyLC, LimasC. Prognostic significance of morphologic parameters in renal cell carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol.1982; 6: 655–663.
4.
TsuiKH, ShvartsO, SmithRB, FiglinRA, de KernionJB, BelldegrunA. Prognostic indicators for renal cell carcinoma: a multivariate analysis of 643 patients using the revised 1997 TNM staging criteria. J Urol.2000; 163: 1090–1095.
5.
AlgabaF. Prognostic factors of epithelial tumours of the kidney. Pathologica.1999; 91: 51–53.
6.
Al-AynatiM, ChenV, SalamaS, ShuhaibarH, TreleavenD, VincicL. Interobserver and intraobserver variability using the Fuhrman grading system for renal cell carcinoma. Arch Pathol Lab Med.2003; 127: 593–596.
7.
BosSD, MellemaCT, MensinkHJ. Increase in incidental renal cell carcinoma in the northern part of the Netherlands. Eur Urol.2000; 37: 267–270.
8.
GelbAB, ShibuyaRB, WeissLM, MedeirosLJ. Stage I renal cell carcinoma. A clinicopathologic study of 82 cases. Am J Surg Pathol.1993; 17: 275–286.
9.
Sika-PaotonuD, BethwaitePB, McCredieMR, William JordanT, DelahuntB. Nucleolar grade but not Fuhrman grade is applicable to papillary renal cell carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol.2006; 30: 1091–1096.
10.
DelahuntB, Sika-PaotonuD, BethwaitePB. Fuhrman grading is not appropriate for chromophobe renal cell carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol.2007; 31: 957–960.
11.
MostofiFK, SobinLH, TorloniH. Histological Typing of Urinary Bladder Tumours (WHO International Histological Classification of Tumours, No. 10). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; (1973.
12.
Millan-RodriguezF, Chechile-TonioloG, Salvador-BayarriJ, PalouJ, AlgabaF, Vicente-RodriguezJ. Primary superficial bladder cancer risk groups according to progression, mortality and recurrence. J Urol.2000; 164: 680–684.
13.
LipponenP, EskelinenM. Nuclear morphometry in grading transitional cell bladder cancer compared with subjective histological grading. Anticancer Res.1990; 10: 1725–1730.
14.
DiBonitoL, MusseMM, DudineS, FalconieriG. Cytology of transitional-cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder: diagnostic yield and histologic basis. Diagn Cytopathol.1992; 8: 124–127.
15.
BorlandRN, PartinAW, EpsteinJI, BrendlerCB. The use of nuclear morphometry in predicting recurrence of transitional cell carcinoma. J Urol.1993; 149: 272–275.
16.
EbleJN, SauterG, EpsteinJI, SesterhennIA, eds. World Health Organization Classification of Tumours. Pathology and Genetics Tumours of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs.Lyon, France: IARC Press; (2004.
17.
BuschC, AlgabaF. The WHO/ISUP 1998 and WHO 1999 systems for malignancy grading of bladder cancer. Scientific foundation and translation to one another and previous systems. Virchows Arch.2002; 441: 105–108.
CarriagaMT, HensonDE. The histologic grading of cancer. Cancer.1995; 75: 406–421.
20.
EpsteinJI, AllsbrookWC, AminMB, EgevadLLISUP Grading Committee. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol.2005; 29: 1228–1242.
21.
KallakuryBV, SheehanCE, RossJS. C-downregulation of cell adhesion proteins alpha- and beta-catenins, p120CTN, E-cadherin, and CD44 in prostatic adenocarcinomas. Hum Pathol.2001; 32: 849–855.
SeboTJ, BockBJ, ChevilleJC. The percent of cores positive for cancer in prostate needle biopsy specimens is strongly predictive of tumor stage and volume at radical prostatectomy. J Urol.2000; 163: 174–178.
24.
PaulsonCF, PiserchiaPV, GardnerW. Predictors of lymphatic spread in prostatic adenocarcinoma. J Urol.1980; 123: 697–699.
25.
HelpapB, EgevadL. The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Virchows Arch.2006; 449: 622–627.
26.
SlatonJW, MorgensternN, LevyDA. Tumor stage, vascular invasion and the percentage of poorly differentiated cancer: independent prognosticators for inguinal node metastasis in penile squamous cancer. J Urol.2001; 165: 1138–1142.
27.
Rubio-BrionesJ, VillavicencioH, RegaladoR. Squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: treatment protocol according to our 14 years experience. Arch Esp Urol.1997; 50: 473–480.
28.
YoungRH, SrigleyJR, AminMB, CubillaAL. Tumors of the Prostate Gland, Seminal Vesicles, Male Urethra and Penis (Fascicle, 3rd series).Washington, DC: Armed Forces Institute of Pathology; (2000.
29.
VelazquezEF, AyalaGE, LiuH. Histologic grade and perineural invasion are more important than tumor thickness as predictor of nodal metastasis in penile squamous cell carcinoma invading 5-10 mm. Am J Surg Pathol.2008; 32: 974–979.
30.
ChauxA, TorresJ, PfannlR. Histological grade in penile squamous cell carcinoma. Visual estimation versus digital measurement of proportions of grades, adverse prognosis with any proportion of grade 3 and correlation of Gleason-like system with nodal metastasis. Am J Surg Pathol.2009; 33: 1042–1048.