FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2019374037> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2019374037 endingPage "856" @default.
• W2019374037 startingPage "851" @default.
• W2019374037 abstract "No AccessJournal of UrologyCLINICAL UROLOGY: Original Articles1 Mar 2001UNDER STAGING AND UNDER GRADING IN A CONTEMPORARY SERIES OF PATIENTS UNDERGOING RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY: RESULTS FROM THE CANCER OF THE PROSTATE STRATEGIC UROLOGIC RESEARCH ENDEAVOR DATABASE GARY D. GROSSFELD, JAMES J. CHANG, JEANETTE M. BROERING, YU-PING LI, DEBORAH P. LUBECK, SCOTT C. FLANDERS, and PETER R. CARROLL GARY D. GROSSFELDGARY D. GROSSFELD Financial interest and/or other relationship Ilex Oncology. More articles by this author , JAMES J. CHANGJAMES J. CHANG More articles by this author , JEANETTE M. BROERINGJEANETTE M. BROERING Financial interest and/or other relationship with TAP Pharmaceuticals. More articles by this author , YU-PING LIYU-PING LI Financial interest and/or other relationship with TAP Pharmaceuticals. More articles by this author , DEBORAH P. LUBECKDEBORAH P. LUBECK Financial interest and/or other relationship with TAP Pharmaceuticals. Financial interest and/or other relationship with Alza Corporation. More articles by this author , SCOTT C. FLANDERSSCOTT C. FLANDERS Financial interest and/or other relationship with TAP Pharmaceuticals. More articles by this author , and PETER R. CARROLLPETER R. CARROLL Financial interest and/or other relationship with TAP Pharmaceuticals. Financial interest and/or other relationship with Anthra Financial interest and/or other relationship with EDAP More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)66543-3AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Purpose: We determined the prevalence of under staging and under grading in contemporary patients undergoing radical prostatectomy in academic and community based urology practices, and defined important predictors of under staging in this population. Materials and Methods: We compared clinical T stage and biopsy Gleason score with pathological T stage and prostatectomy Gleason score in 1,313 patients enrolled in the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor database, a longitudinal registry of patients with prostate cancer, who underwent radical prostatectomy, including 53% since 1995. Under grading was determined for the primary and secondary Gleason patterns and defined as a biopsy Gleason pattern of 1 to 3 that became pathological Gleason pattern 4 or 5. Under staging was defined as a clinically organ confined tumor that was extraprostatic stages pT3 to 4 or N+ at radical prostatectomy. Univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to determine important risk factors for under staging and significant risk factors were used to identify the likelihood of under staging in clinically relevant patient subgroups. The importance of the percent of positive biopsies in regard to the likelihood of under staging was determined by assigning patients to previously described risk groups based on serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) at diagnosis and biopsy Gleason score. Results: Under grading of primary and secondary Gleason patterns occurred in 13% and 29% of patients, respectively, while under staging occurred in 24%. Univariate and multivariate analysis revealed that PSA at diagnosis, biopsy Gleason score and the percent of positive biopsies were significant predictors of under staging. The percent of positive biopsies appeared to be most important for predicting the likelihood of extraprostatic disease extension in intermediate or high risk disease based on serum PSA at diagnosis and biopsy Gleason grade. Conclusions: The prevalence of under grading and under staging in contemporary patients undergoing radical prostatectomy may be lower than previously reported. PSA at diagnosis, biopsy Gleason score and the percent of positive biopsies are important predictors of under staging. The percent of positive biopsies should be incorporated into risk assessment models of newly diagnosed prostate cancer. References 1 : The use of prostate specific antigen, clinical stage and Gleason score to predict pathological stage in men with localized prostate cancer. J Urol1993; 150: 110. Link, Google Scholar 2 : Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update. JAMA1997; 277: 1445. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 3 : Predicting the risk of lymph node involvement using the pre-treatment prostate specific antigen and Gleason score in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys1994; 28: 33. Google Scholar 4 : Serum prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, pathologic grade, and the incidence of nodal metastases in prostate cancer. Urology1994; 44: 215. Google Scholar 5 : Eliminating the need for bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy in select patients with prostate cancer. J Urol1994; 151: 1315. Link, Google Scholar 6 : A multiple prognostic index predictive of disease outcome after irradiation for clinically localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer1997; 79: 337. Google Scholar 7 : Outcome based staging for clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate. J Urol1997; 158: 1422. Google Scholar 8 : A preoperative nomogram for disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst1998; 90: 766. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 9 : An algorithm for predicting nonorgan confined prostate cancer using the results obtained from sextant core biopsies with prostate specific antigen level. J Urol1996; 156: 1375. Link, Google Scholar 10 : Systematic sextant biopsies in the prediction of extracapsular extension at radical prostatectomy. Urology1997; 50: 373. Google Scholar 11 : Systematic sextant biopsies improve preoperative prediction of pelvic lymph node metastases in patients with clinically localized prostatic carcinoma. J Urol1998; 159: 2023. Link, Google Scholar 12 : Clinical utility of the percentage of positive prostate biopsies in defining biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol2000; 18: 1164. Google Scholar 13 : Preoperative prediction of tumor heterogeneity and recurrence after radical prostatectomy for localized prostatic carcinoma with digital rectal, examination prostate specific antigen and the results of 6 systematic biopsies. J Urol1996; 155: 1344. Link, Google Scholar 14 : The role of transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy-based staging, preoperative serum prostate-specific antigen, and biopsy Gleason score in prediction of final pathologic diagnosis in prostate cancer. Urology1995; 46: 205. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 15 : Sextant prostate biopsies. A histopathologic correlation with radical prostatectomy specimens. Cancer1995; 75: 530. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 16 : Positive fraction of systematic biopsies predicts risk of relapse after radical prostatectomy. Urology1998; 52: 1079. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 17 : Systematic biopsies accurately predict extracapsular extension of prostate cancer and persistent/recurrent detectable PSA after radical prostatectomy. Urology1994; 44: 371. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 18 : Ability of sextant biopsies to predict radical prostatectomy stage. Urology1998; 51: 759. Google Scholar 19 : The CaPSURE database: a methodology for clinical practice and research in prostate cancer. CaPSURE Research Panel Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor Urology1996; 48: 773. Google Scholar 20 : Prostate. In: Manual for Staging of Cancer. Edited by . Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott1992: 181. Google Scholar 21 : The intraclass correlation coefficient as a measure of reliability. Psychol Rep1966; 19: 3. Google Scholar 22 : Statistical Methods for Research Workers. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd1944. Google Scholar 23 : Use of second treatment following definitive local therapy for prostate cancer: data from the CaPSURE database. J Urol1998; 160: 1398. Link, Google Scholar 24 : Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA1998; 280: 969. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 25 : 5-year tumor recurrence rates after anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol1994; 152: 1837. Link, Google Scholar 26 : Long-term (15 years) results after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized (stage T2c or lower) prostate cancer. J Urol1994; 152: 1850. Link, Google Scholar 27 : Cancer control and quality of life following anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy: results at 10 years. J Urol1994; 152: 1831. Link, Google Scholar 28 : Predicting extracapsular extension of prostate cancer in men treated with radical prostatectomy: results from the population based prostate cancer outcomes study. J Urol1999; 162: 1341. Link, Google Scholar 29 : Correlation of prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason grade in academic and community settings. Am J Surg Pathol1997; 21: 566. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 30 : Prognostic significance of Gleason score 3+4 versus Gleason score 4+3 tumor at radical prostatectomy. J Urol2000; 163: 320. abstract 1422. Google Scholar 31 : Biological determinants of cancer progression in men with prostate cancer. JAMA1999; 281: 1395. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar From the Department of Urology, Urology Outcomes Research Group and University of California, San Francisco-Mount Zion Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, and TAP Pharmaceutical Products, Inc., Lake Forest, Illinois© 2001 by American Urological Association, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byBhindi B, Karnes R, Rangel L, Mason R, Gettman M, Frank I, Tollefson M, Lin D, Thompson R and Boorjian S (2017) Independent Validation of the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th Edition Prostate Cancer Staging ClassificationJournal of Urology, VOL. 198, NO. 6, (1286-1294), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2017.Dinh K, Mahal B, Ziehr D, Muralidhar V, Chen Y, Viswanathan V, Nezolosky M, Beard C, Choueiri T, Martin N, Orio P, Sweeney C, Trinh Q and Nguyen P (2015) Incidence and Predictors of Upgrading and Up Staging among 10,000 Contemporary Patients with Low Risk Prostate CancerJournal of Urology, VOL. 194, NO. 2, (343-349), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2015.Somford D, Hamoen E, Fütterer J, van Basten J, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C, Vreuls W, van Oort I, Vergunst H, Kiemeney L, Barentsz J and Witjes J (2013) The Predictive Value of Endorectal 3 Tesla Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Extraprostatic Extension in Patients with Low, Intermediate and High Risk Prostate CancerJournal of Urology, VOL. 190, NO. 5, (1728-1734), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2013.Yossepowitch O, Eggener S, Bianco F, Carver B, Serio A, Scardino P and Eastham J (2007) Radical Prostatectomy for Clinically Localized, High Risk Prostate Cancer: Critical Analysis of Risk Assessment MethodsJournal of Urology, VOL. 178, NO. 2, (493-499), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2007.Donohue J, Bianco F, Kuroiwa K, Vickers A, Wheeler T, Scardino P, Reuter V and Eastham J (2018) Poorly Differentiated Prostate Cancer Treated With Radical Prostatectomy: Long-Term Outcome and Incidence of Pathological DowngradingJournal of Urology, VOL. 176, NO. 3, (991-995), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2006.Greene K, Elkin E, Karapetian A, DuChane J, Carroll P and Kane C (2018) Prostate Biopsy Tumor Extent but Not Location Predicts Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy: Results From CaPSUREJournal of Urology, VOL. 175, NO. 1, (125-129), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2006.MITCHELL J, COOPERBERG M, ELKIN E, LUBECK D, MEHTA S, KANE C and CARROLL P (2018) ABILITY OF 2 PRETREATMENT RISK ASSESSMENT METHODS TO PREDICT PROSTATE CANCER RECURRENCE AFTER RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY: DATA FROM CaPSUREJournal of Urology, VOL. 173, NO. 4, (1126-1131), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2005.COOPERBERG M, BROERING J, LITWIN M, LUBECK D, MEHTA S, HENNING J and CARROLL P (2018) THE CONTEMPORARY MANAGEMENT OF PROSTATE CANCER IN THE UNITED STATES: LESSONS FROM THE CANCER OF THE PROSTATE STRATEGIC UROLOGIC RESEARCH ENDEAVOR (CAPSURE), A NATIONAL DISEASE REGISTRYJournal of Urology, VOL. 171, NO. 4, (1393-1401), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2004.D’AMICO A, COTE K, LOFFREDO M, RENSHAW A and CHEN M (2018) Pretreatment Predictors of Time to Cancer Specific Death After Prostate Specific Antigen FailureJournal of Urology, VOL. 169, NO. 4, (1320-1324), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2003.GROSSFELD G, LATINI D, LUBECK D, MEHTA S and CARROLL P (2018) Predicting Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy for Patients With High Risk Prostate CancerJournal of Urology, VOL. 169, NO. 1, (157-163), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2003.D’AMICO A, CHEN M, MALKOWICZ S, WHITTINGTON R, RENSHAW A, TOMASZEWSKI J, SAMOFALOV Y, WEIN A and RICHIE J (2018) Lower Prostate Specific Antigen Outcome Than Expected Following Radical Prostatectomy in Patients With High Grade Prostate and a Prostatic Specific Antigen Level of 4 Ng/Ml. or LessJournal of Urology, VOL. 167, NO. 5, (2025-2031), Online publication date: 1-May-2002.Penson D, Grossfeld G, Li Y, Henning J, Lubeck D and Carroll P (2018) How Well Does The Partin Nomogram Predict Pathological Stage After Radical Prostatectomy In A Community Based Population? Results Of The Cancer Of The Prostate Strategic Urological Research EndeavorJournal of Urology, VOL. 167, NO. 4, (1653-1658), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2002. Volume 165Issue 3March 2001Page: 851-856 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2001 by American Urological Association, Inc.Keywordsneoplasm stagingprostate-specific antigenprostatectomyprostatic neoplasmsprostateMetrics Author Information GARY D. GROSSFELD Financial interest and/or other relationship Ilex Oncology. More articles by this author JAMES J. CHANG More articles by this author JEANETTE M. BROERING Financial interest and/or other relationship with TAP Pharmaceuticals. More articles by this author YU-PING LI Financial interest and/or other relationship with TAP Pharmaceuticals. More articles by this author DEBORAH P. LUBECK Financial interest and/or other relationship with TAP Pharmaceuticals. Financial interest and/or other relationship with Alza Corporation. More articles by this author SCOTT C. FLANDERS Financial interest and/or other relationship with TAP Pharmaceuticals. More articles by this author PETER R. CARROLL Financial interest and/or other relationship with TAP Pharmaceuticals. Financial interest and/or other relationship with Anthra Financial interest and/or other relationship with EDAP More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ..." @default.
• W2019374037 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2019374037 creator A5012580173 @default.
• W2019374037 creator A5027351735 @default.
• W2019374037 creator A5044492888 @default.
• W2019374037 creator A5044592152 @default.
• W2019374037 creator A5052592375 @default.
• W2019374037 creator A5056969058 @default.
• W2019374037 creator A5062338384 @default.
• W2019374037 date "2001-03-01" @default.
• W2019374037 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2019374037 title "UNDER STAGING AND UNDER GRADING IN A CONTEMPORARY SERIES OF PATIENTS UNDERGOING RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY: RESULTS FROM THE CANCER OF THE PROSTATE STRATEGIC UROLOGIC RESEARCH ENDEAVOR DATABASE" @default.
• W2019374037 cites W1220153186 @default.
• W2019374037 cites W165132104 @default.
• W2019374037 cites W182657709 @default.
• W2019374037 cites W190857994 @default.
• W2019374037 cites W1968629884 @default.
• W2019374037 cites W1983261784 @default.
• W2019374037 cites W2004732563 @default.
• W2019374037 cites W2042904794 @default.
• W2019374037 cites W2045796173 @default.
• W2019374037 cites W2047543099 @default.
• W2019374037 cites W2051236771 @default.
• W2019374037 cites W2063266750 @default.
• W2019374037 cites W2064224469 @default.
• W2019374037 cites W2066558203 @default.
• W2019374037 cites W2068157007 @default.
• W2019374037 cites W2082365322 @default.
• W2019374037 cites W2087788603 @default.
• W2019374037 cites W2095336553 @default.
• W2019374037 cites W2106342858 @default.
• W2019374037 cites W2113997135 @default.
• W2019374037 cites W2117792530 @default.
• W2019374037 cites W2136148671 @default.
• W2019374037 cites W2152561234 @default.
• W2019374037 cites W2170978610 @default.
• W2019374037 cites W2209020482 @default.
• W2019374037 cites W31616992 @default.
• W2019374037 cites W4252605154 @default.
• W2019374037 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(05)66543-3" @default.
• W2019374037 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11176485" @default.
• W2019374037 hasPublicationYear "2001" @default.
• W2019374037 type Work @default.
• W2019374037 sameAs 2019374037 @default.
• W2019374037 citedByCount "150" @default.
• W2019374037 countsByYear W20193740372012 @default.
• W2019374037 countsByYear W20193740372013 @default.
• W2019374037 countsByYear W20193740372014 @default.
• W2019374037 countsByYear W20193740372015 @default.
• W2019374037 countsByYear W20193740372016 @default.
• W2019374037 countsByYear W20193740372017 @default.
• W2019374037 countsByYear W20193740372019 @default.
• W2019374037 countsByYear W20193740372020 @default.
• W2019374037 countsByYear W20193740372021 @default.
• W2019374037 countsByYear W20193740372022 @default.
• W2019374037 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2019374037 hasAuthorship W2019374037A5012580173 @default.
• W2019374037 hasAuthorship W2019374037A5027351735 @default.
• W2019374037 hasAuthorship W2019374037A5044492888 @default.
• W2019374037 hasAuthorship W2019374037A5044592152 @default.
• W2019374037 hasAuthorship W2019374037A5052592375 @default.
• W2019374037 hasAuthorship W2019374037A5056969058 @default.
• W2019374037 hasAuthorship W2019374037A5062338384 @default.
• W2019374037 hasConcept C121608353 @default.
• W2019374037 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2019374037 hasConcept C126894567 @default.
• W2019374037 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W2019374037 hasConcept C147176958 @default.
• W2019374037 hasConcept C2776235491 @default.
• W2019374037 hasConcept C2777286243 @default.
• W2019374037 hasConcept C2779466945 @default.
• W2019374037 hasConcept C2780192828 @default.
• W2019374037 hasConcept C61434518 @default.
• W2019374037 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2019374037 hasConceptScore W2019374037C121608353 @default.
• W2019374037 hasConceptScore W2019374037C126322002 @default.
• W2019374037 hasConceptScore W2019374037C126894567 @default.
• W2019374037 hasConceptScore W2019374037C127413603 @default.
• W2019374037 hasConceptScore W2019374037C147176958 @default.
• W2019374037 hasConceptScore W2019374037C2776235491 @default.
• W2019374037 hasConceptScore W2019374037C2777286243 @default.
• W2019374037 hasConceptScore W2019374037C2779466945 @default.
• W2019374037 hasConceptScore W2019374037C2780192828 @default.
• W2019374037 hasConceptScore W2019374037C61434518 @default.
• W2019374037 hasConceptScore W2019374037C71924100 @default.
• W2019374037 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W2019374037 hasLocation W20193740371 @default.
• W2019374037 hasLocation W20193740372 @default.
• W2019374037 hasOpenAccess W2019374037 @default.
• W2019374037 hasPrimaryLocation W20193740371 @default.
• W2019374037 hasRelatedWork W108895284 @default.
• W2019374037 hasRelatedWork W1967410728 @default.
• W2019374037 hasRelatedWork W1982503259 @default.
• W2019374037 hasRelatedWork W1995349396 @default.
• W2019374037 hasRelatedWork W2037411085 @default.
• W2019374037 hasRelatedWork W2094977608 @default.
• W2019374037 hasRelatedWork W2118670275 @default.
• W2019374037 hasRelatedWork W2402249956 @default.

• next