FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2059106314> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2059106314 endingPage "629" @default.
• W2059106314 startingPage "624" @default.
• W2059106314 abstract "Purpose Previous studies have criticized the predicting ability of the Roach formula in assessing the risk of lymph node invasion (LNI) in contemporary patients with prostate cancer (PCa) due to a significant overestimation of LNI rates. However, all those studies included patients treated with limited pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND), which is associated with high rates of false negative findings. We hypothesized that the Roach formula is still an accurate tool for LNI predictions if an extended PLND (ePLND) is performed. Methods and Materials We included 3,115 consecutive patients treated with radical prostatectomy and ePLND between 2000 and 2010 at a single tertiary referral center. Extended PLND consisted of removal of obturator, external iliac, and hypogastric lymph nodes. We externally validated the Roach formula by using the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve and calibration plot method. Moreover, we tested the performance characteristics of different formula-generated cutoff values ranging from 1% to 20%. Results The accuracy of the Roach formula was 80.3%. The calibration showed only a minor underestimation of the LNI risk in high-risk patients (6.7%). According to the Roach formula, the use of 15% cut off would have allowed 74.2% (2,311/3,115) of patients to avoid nodal irradiation, while up to 32.7% (111/336) of all patients with LNI would have been missed. When the cut off was lowered to 6%, nodal treatment would have been spared in 1,541 (49.5%) patients while missing 41 LNI patients. The sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive values associated with the 6% cut off were 87.9%, 54%, and 97.3%, respectively. Conclusions The Roach formula is still accurate and does not overestimate the rate of LNI in contemporary prostate cancer patients if they are treated with ePLND. However, the recommended cut off of 15% would miss approximately one-third of patients with LNI. Based on our results, the cut off should be lowered to 6%. Previous studies have criticized the predicting ability of the Roach formula in assessing the risk of lymph node invasion (LNI) in contemporary patients with prostate cancer (PCa) due to a significant overestimation of LNI rates. However, all those studies included patients treated with limited pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND), which is associated with high rates of false negative findings. We hypothesized that the Roach formula is still an accurate tool for LNI predictions if an extended PLND (ePLND) is performed. We included 3,115 consecutive patients treated with radical prostatectomy and ePLND between 2000 and 2010 at a single tertiary referral center. Extended PLND consisted of removal of obturator, external iliac, and hypogastric lymph nodes. We externally validated the Roach formula by using the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve and calibration plot method. Moreover, we tested the performance characteristics of different formula-generated cutoff values ranging from 1% to 20%. The accuracy of the Roach formula was 80.3%. The calibration showed only a minor underestimation of the LNI risk in high-risk patients (6.7%). According to the Roach formula, the use of 15% cut off would have allowed 74.2% (2,311/3,115) of patients to avoid nodal irradiation, while up to 32.7% (111/336) of all patients with LNI would have been missed. When the cut off was lowered to 6%, nodal treatment would have been spared in 1,541 (49.5%) patients while missing 41 LNI patients. The sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive values associated with the 6% cut off were 87.9%, 54%, and 97.3%, respectively. The Roach formula is still accurate and does not overestimate the rate of LNI in contemporary prostate cancer patients if they are treated with ePLND. However, the recommended cut off of 15% would miss approximately one-third of patients with LNI. Based on our results, the cut off should be lowered to 6%." @default.
• W2059106314 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2059106314 creator A5008462348 @default.
• W2059106314 creator A5018063898 @default.
• W2059106314 creator A5031550729 @default.
• W2059106314 creator A5038974730 @default.
• W2059106314 creator A5039363062 @default.
• W2059106314 creator A5051984796 @default.
• W2059106314 creator A5052543530 @default.
• W2059106314 creator A5054660525 @default.
• W2059106314 creator A5057587736 @default.
• W2059106314 creator A5059157811 @default.
• W2059106314 creator A5061623935 @default.
• W2059106314 creator A5065562673 @default.
• W2059106314 creator A5071652086 @default.
• W2059106314 date "2012-06-01" @default.
• W2059106314 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W2059106314 title "Indications for Pelvic Nodal Treatment in Prostate Cancer Should Change. Validation of the Roach Formula in a Large Extended Nodal Dissection Series" @default.
• W2059106314 cites W190857994 @default.
• W2059106314 cites W1978801336 @default.
• W2059106314 cites W1983145936 @default.
• W2059106314 cites W1996587036 @default.
• W2059106314 cites W1999843388 @default.
• W2059106314 cites W2014420251 @default.
• W2059106314 cites W2014511587 @default.
• W2059106314 cites W2021220421 @default.
• W2059106314 cites W2027236201 @default.
• W2059106314 cites W2039978974 @default.
• W2059106314 cites W2063266750 @default.
• W2059106314 cites W2092185710 @default.
• W2059106314 cites W2115702569 @default.
• W2059106314 cites W2130371116 @default.
• W2059106314 cites W2147437793 @default.
• W2059106314 cites W2154697678 @default.
• W2059106314 cites W2160144380 @default.
• W2059106314 cites W2165217523 @default.
• W2059106314 cites W2167949509 @default.
• W2059106314 cites W49263098 @default.
• W2059106314 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.06.2014" @default.
• W2059106314 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22099031" @default.
• W2059106314 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W2059106314 type Work @default.
• W2059106314 sameAs 2059106314 @default.
• W2059106314 citedByCount "26" @default.
• W2059106314 countsByYear W20591063142012 @default.
• W2059106314 countsByYear W20591063142013 @default.
• W2059106314 countsByYear W20591063142014 @default.
• W2059106314 countsByYear W20591063142015 @default.
• W2059106314 countsByYear W20591063142016 @default.
• W2059106314 countsByYear W20591063142017 @default.
• W2059106314 countsByYear W20591063142018 @default.
• W2059106314 countsByYear W20591063142019 @default.
• W2059106314 countsByYear W20591063142020 @default.
• W2059106314 countsByYear W20591063142021 @default.
• W2059106314 countsByYear W20591063142023 @default.
• W2059106314 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2059106314 hasAuthorship W2059106314A5008462348 @default.
• W2059106314 hasAuthorship W2059106314A5018063898 @default.
• W2059106314 hasAuthorship W2059106314A5031550729 @default.
• W2059106314 hasAuthorship W2059106314A5038974730 @default.
• W2059106314 hasAuthorship W2059106314A5039363062 @default.
• W2059106314 hasAuthorship W2059106314A5051984796 @default.
• W2059106314 hasAuthorship W2059106314A5052543530 @default.
• W2059106314 hasAuthorship W2059106314A5054660525 @default.
• W2059106314 hasAuthorship W2059106314A5057587736 @default.
• W2059106314 hasAuthorship W2059106314A5059157811 @default.
• W2059106314 hasAuthorship W2059106314A5061623935 @default.
• W2059106314 hasAuthorship W2059106314A5065562673 @default.
• W2059106314 hasAuthorship W2059106314A5071652086 @default.
• W2059106314 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W2059106314 hasConcept C121608353 @default.
• W2059106314 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2059106314 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W2059106314 hasConcept C126894567 @default.
• W2059106314 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2059106314 hasConcept C2775862295 @default.
• W2059106314 hasConcept C2778217198 @default.
• W2059106314 hasConcept C2779466945 @default.
• W2059106314 hasConcept C2780192828 @default.
• W2059106314 hasConcept C2780849966 @default.
• W2059106314 hasConcept C2989005 @default.
• W2059106314 hasConcept C58471807 @default.
• W2059106314 hasConcept C62520636 @default.
• W2059106314 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2059106314 hasConcept C83330619 @default.
• W2059106314 hasConceptScore W2059106314C121332964 @default.
• W2059106314 hasConceptScore W2059106314C121608353 @default.
• W2059106314 hasConceptScore W2059106314C126322002 @default.
• W2059106314 hasConceptScore W2059106314C126838900 @default.
• W2059106314 hasConceptScore W2059106314C126894567 @default.
• W2059106314 hasConceptScore W2059106314C141071460 @default.
• W2059106314 hasConceptScore W2059106314C2775862295 @default.
• W2059106314 hasConceptScore W2059106314C2778217198 @default.
• W2059106314 hasConceptScore W2059106314C2779466945 @default.
• W2059106314 hasConceptScore W2059106314C2780192828 @default.
• W2059106314 hasConceptScore W2059106314C2780849966 @default.
• W2059106314 hasConceptScore W2059106314C2989005 @default.
• W2059106314 hasConceptScore W2059106314C58471807 @default.

• next