Air data computer simulation and design credibility assessment considering ADC calculation model

[1] Da Paz, A. R., Billis, A., Freitas, L. L., Costa, L. B., Barreto, I. S., Magna, L. A., ... & Ferreira, U. (2021). Prognostic significance of architectural subtypes of Gleason grade 4 prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy: a semiquantitative method of evaluation. Annals of Diagnostic Pathology, 50, 151678. Search in Google Scholar

[2] Chapman D., Quinn T.J., Hamstra D.A. (2021). Validation of the Combination Gleason Score as an Independent Favorable Prognostic Factor in Prostate Cancer Treated With Dose-Escalated Radiotherapy. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 111(3S). Search in Google Scholar

[3] Julio Silva-Rodríguez, Adrián Colomer, María A. Sales et al. (2020). Going deeper through the Gleason scoring scale: An automatic end-to-end system for histology prostate grading and cribriform pattern detection. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 195 (prepublish). Search in Google Scholar

[4] Ivan Lysenko, Keiichiro Mori, Hadi Mostafaei et al. (2020). Prognostic Value of Gleason Score at Positive Surgical Margin in Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Clinical Genitourinary Cancer, 18 (prepublish). Search in Google Scholar

[5] Rei Kamitani, Kazuhiro Matsumoto, Takeo Kosaka et al. (2020). Evaluation of Gleason Grade Group 5 in a Contemporary Prostate Cancer Grading System and Literature Review. Clinical Genitourinary Cancer. Search in Google Scholar

[6] Frankcombe, D. E., Li, J., & Cohen, R. J. (2020). Redefining the concept of clinically insignificant prostate cancer. Urology, 136, 176-179. Search in Google Scholar

[7] Michael C. Haffner, Daniela C. Salles, Guofeng Gao et al. (2020). Gleason pattern 4 with cribriform morphology on biopsy is associated with adverse clinicopathological findings in a prospective radical prostatectomy cohort. Human Pathology, 98 (prepublish). Search in Google Scholar

[8] Luca Brunese, Francesco Mercaldo, Alfonso Reginelli et al. (2020). Formal methods for prostate cancer Gleason score and treatment prediction using radiomic biomarkers. Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 66(C). Search in Google Scholar

[9] Hongyang Qian, Xiaoguang Shao, Yinjie Zhu et al. (2020). Surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy of preoperative serum samples predicts Gleason grade group upgrade in biopsy Gleason grade group 1 prostate cancer. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations, 38(6). Search in Google Scholar

[10] Kevin Ginsburg, Adam I. Cole, Michael E. Silverman et al. (2020). Should all prostate needle biopsy Gleason score 4+4=8 prostate cancers be high risk? Implications for shared decision-making and patient counselling. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations, 38(3). Search in Google Scholar

[11] Andres M. Acosta, Mary-Ellen Taplin, Douglas A. Mata et al. (2020). Volume of Gleason pattern 4 stratifies risk of metastasis and death in patients with Gleason score 3+5=8/5+3=8 positive prostate core biopsies. Human Pathology, 99 (prepublish). Search in Google Scholar

[12] Vickers, A. J., & Fine, S. W. (2020). Three things about Gleason grading that just about everyone believes but that are almost certainly wrong. Urology, 143, 16-19. Search in Google Scholar

[13] Czaja Rebecca C., Tarima Sergey, Wu Ruizhe et al. (2021). Comparative influence of cribriform growth and percent Gleason 4 in prostatic biopsies with Gleason 3+4 cancer. Annals of Diagnostic Pathology, 52. Search in Google Scholar

[14] Gong Lixin, Xu Min, Fang Mengjie et al. (2022). The potential of prostate gland radiomic features in identifying the gleason score. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 144 (prepublish). Search in Google Scholar

[15] Sophie Knipper, Carlotta Palumbo, Angela Pecoraro et al. (2020). Survival outcomes of radical prostatectomy vs. external beam radiation therapy in prostate cancer patients with Gleason Score 9-10 at biopsy: A population-based analysis. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations, 38(3). Search in Google Scholar

[16] Izak Faiena, Amirali Salmasi, Neil Mendhiratta et al. (2018). PI-RADSv2 Category on 3 Tesla Multiparametric Prostate MRI Predicts Oncologic Outcomes in Gleason 3+4 Prostate Cancer on Biopsy. The Journal of Urology, 201(1). Search in Google Scholar

[17] Hirth Carlos Gustavo, Vasconcelos Gislane Rocha, Lima Marcos Venício Alves et al. (2021). Prognostic value of FUS immunoexpression for Gleason patterns and prostatic adenocarcinoma progression. Annals of Diagnostic Pathology, 52(prepublish). Search in Google Scholar

[18] Lucas W. Dean, Melissa Assel, Daniel D. Sjoberg et al. (2018). Clinical utility of total length Gleason pattern 4 on biopsy in men with Grade Group 2 prostate cancer. The Journal of Urology, 201(1). Search in Google Scholar

[19] Wan Song, Seok Hwan Bang, Hwang Gyun Jeon et al. (2018). Role of PI-RADS Version 2 for Prediction of Upgrading in Biopsy-Proven Prostate Cancer With Gleason Score 6. Clinical Genitourinary Cancer, 16(4). Search in Google Scholar

[20] Andres M. Acosta, Erica Vormittag, Mohamed R. Haroon Al Rasheed et al. (2018). Comparison of Prostatic Adenocarcinoma Gleason 5 and Intraductal Carcinoma of the Prostate with Tumor Necrosis. A Morphometric Study. Pathology - Research and Practice, 214(10). Search in Google Scholar

[21] Jonathan B. Bloom, Graham Hale, Samuel A. Gold et al. (2018). Predicting Gleason Group Progression for Men on Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance: The Role of a Negative Confirmatory MRI-US Fusion Biopsy. The Journal of Urology, 201(1). Search in Google Scholar

[22] Mehmet Özsoy, David D’Andrea, Marco Moschini et al. (2018). Tertiary Gleason pattern in radical prostatectomy specimens is associated with worse outcomes than the next higher Gleason score group in localized prostate cancer. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations, 36(4). Search in Google Scholar

[23] Muralidhar V., Mahal B.A., Butler S.S. et al. (2019). Combined External Beam Radiation Therapy and Brachytherapy Versus Radical Prostatectomy with Adjuvant Radiation Therapy for Gleason 9-10 Prostate Cancer. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics, 105(1S). Search in Google Scholar

[24] Leeman J.E., Chen M.H., Huland H. et al. (2019). Advancing Age and the Odds of Upgrading and Upstaging at Radical Prostatectomy in Men with Gleason Score 6 Prostate Cancer. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics, 105(1S). Search in Google Scholar

[25] Darryl T. Martin, Kamyar Ghabili, Angelique Levi et al. (2019). Prostate Cancer Genomic Classifier Relates More Strongly to Gleason Grade Group Than Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Score in Multiparametric Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging-ultrasound Fusion Targeted Biopsies. Urology, 125. Search in Google Scholar

[26] David J., Luu M., Zumsteg Z.S. et al. (2019). Overall Survival Outcomes with Brachytherapy Based Dose Escalation for Gleason 8 versus 9-10 Prostate Cancer: An NCDB Analysis. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics, 105(1S). Search in Google Scholar

[27] Mori Keiichiro, Sharma Vidit, Comperat Eva M. et al. (2020). Differential prognostic impact of different Gleason patterns in grade group 4 in radical prostatectomy specimens. European Journal of Surgical Oncology, 47(5). Search in Google Scholar

[28] Venkatesh Kolluru, Balaji Chandrasekaran, Ashish Tyagi et al. (2018). miR-301a expression: Diagnostic and prognostic marker for prostate cancer. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations, 36(11). Search in Google Scholar

[29] Wang H., Mendez L.C., Morton G. et al. (2021). Immune cell profiling in Gleason 9 prostate cancer patients treated with brachytherapy versus external beam radiotherapy: An exploratory study. Radiotherapy and Oncology, 155(prepublish). Search in Google Scholar