FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4295773257> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4295773257 endingPage "523" @default.
• W4295773257 startingPage "517" @default.
• W4295773257 abstract "No AccessJournal of UrologyCLINICAL UROLOGY: Original Articles1 Feb 2003Biochemical (Prostate Specific Antigen) Recurrence Probability Following Radical Prostatectomy for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer MISOP HAN, ALAN W. PARTIN, MARIANNA ZAHURAK, STEVEN PIANTADOSI, JONATHAN I. EPSTEIN, and PATRICK C. WALSH MISOP HANMISOP HAN More articles by this author , ALAN W. PARTINALAN W. PARTIN Financial interest and/or other relationship with Bayer, Hybritech, Merck, Urologix and Roche. More articles by this author , MARIANNA ZAHURAKMARIANNA ZAHURAK More articles by this author , STEVEN PIANTADOSISTEVEN PIANTADOSI More articles by this author , JONATHAN I. EPSTEINJONATHAN I. EPSTEIN More articles by this author , and PATRICK C. WALSHPATRICK C. WALSH More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)63946-8AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Purpose: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical followup for a large series of men with clinically localized prostate cancer who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy to identify clinical and/or pathological indicators of biochemical (prostate specific antigen [PSA]) recurrence. We then used those indicators to develop multivariate models for determination of recurrence probability following radical retropubic prostatectomy. Materials and Methods: From 1982 to 1999, 2,091 consecutive men underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy for clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate (clinical stage T1c or T2 disease with Gleason score 5 or greater). Actuarial analysis was performed comparing freedom from biochemical recurrence after radical retropubic prostatectomy (PSA 0.2 ng./ml. or greater.) using the Kaplan-Meier method. Event time distributions for the time to recurrence were compared using the log rank statistic or the Cox proportional hazards regression model. The first model was developed using preoperative variables only and the second model using all available variables. Observed and predicted recurrence-free survival curves for different models were compared to select a model for calculation of predicted recurrence-free probabilities and confidence intervals. Results: With a median followup of 5.9 years (range 1 to 17) 360 men (17%) had biochemical recurrence. Overall actuarial 5, 10 and 15-year biochemical recurrence-free survival rates were 84%, 72% and 61%, respectively. The relative risk of biochemical recurrence following surgery decreased with time, even after adjusted for other perioperative parameters. Variables identified for the preoperative model were biopsy Gleason score, clinical TNM stage and PSA. Variables identified for the postoperative model were prostatectomy Gleason score, PSA and pathological organ confinement status. Nomograms were generated and corrected for the decreasing relative risk of biochemical recurrence over time. Conclusions: Using 3 preoperative or postoperative parameters, these nomograms can easily be used to determine the 3, 5, 7 and 10-year biochemical recurrence-free survival probabilities among men who undergo radical retropubic prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer in the modern era. References 1 : Natural history of progression after PSA elevation following radical prostatectomy. JAMA1999; 281: 1591. Google Scholar 2 : Prostate-specific antigen after anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy. Patterns of recurrence and cancer control. Urol Clin North Am1997; 24: 395. Google Scholar 3 : 5-Year tumor recurrence rates after anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol1994; 152: 1837. Link, Google Scholar 4 : Cancer recurrence and survival rates after anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy for prostate cancer: intermediate-term results. J Urol1998; 160: 2428. Link, Google Scholar 5 : Can radical prostatectomy alter the progression of poorly differentiated prostate cancer?. J Urol1994; 152: 1843. Link, Google Scholar 6 : The incidence and significance of detectable levels of serum prostate specific antigen after radical prostatectomy. J Urol1994; 152: 1821. Link, Google Scholar 7 : Long-term (15 years) results after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized (stage T2c or lower) prostate cancer. J Urol1994; 152: 1850. Link, Google Scholar 8 : Long term biochemical disease-free and cancer-specific survival following anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy: the 15-year Johns Hopkins experience. In: Urologic Clinics of North America. Edited by . Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co.2001: 555. Google Scholar 9 : Era specific biochemical recurrence-free survival following radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol2001; 166: 416. Link, Google Scholar 10 : American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co.1992: 181. Google Scholar 11 : Selection of men at high risk for disease recurrence for experimental adjuvant therapy following radical prostatectomy. Urology1995; 45: 831. Google Scholar 12 : Serum PSA after anatomic radical prostatectomy. The Johns Hopkins experience after 10 years. Urol Clin North Am1993; 20: 713. Google Scholar 13 : Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc1958; 53: 457. Google Scholar 14 : Regression models and life-tables. J R Stat Soc Ser B1972; 34: 187. Google Scholar 15 : An anatomical approach to the surgical management of the dorsal vein and Santorini's plexus during radical retropubic surgery. J Urol1979; 121: 198. Link, Google Scholar 16 : Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. J Urol1982; 128: 492. Link, Google Scholar 17 : Prostate Cancer Trends 1973–1995, SEER Program. Bethesda: National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute1999. Google Scholar 18 : Contemporary identification of patients at high risk of early prostate cancer recurrence after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology2001; 57: 1033. Google Scholar 19 : A preoperative nomogram for disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst1998; 90: 766. Google Scholar 20 : Postoperative nomogram for disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol1999; 17: 1499. Google Scholar 21 : Long-term hazard of progression after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: continued risk of biochemical failure after 5 years. J Urol2000; 164: 101. Link, Google Scholar 22 : Significance of small foci of Gleason score 7 or greater prostate cancer on needle biopsy. Urology1999; 54: 528. Google Scholar 23 : 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. Google Scholar From the James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Departments of Urology, Oncology and Pathology, The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland© 2003 by American Urological Association, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byTanaka T, Kawashima A, Rangel L, Schulte P, Froemming A, King B, Mynderse L and Karnes R (2022) Long-Term Risk of Clinical Progression Utilizing Magnetic Resonance Imaging Findings of Locally Recurrent Prostate Cancer in Patients with Biochemical Recurrence following Radical ProstatectomyJournal of Urology, VOL. 207, NO. 5, (1038-1047), Online publication date: 1-May-2022.Tan N, Shen L, Khoshnoodi P, Alcalá H, Yu W, Hsu W, Reiter R, Lu D and Raman S (2018) Pathological and 3 Tesla Volumetric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Predictors of Biochemical Recurrence after Robotic Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Correlation with Whole Mount HistopathologyJournal of Urology, VOL. 199, NO. 5, (1218-1223), Online publication date: 1-May-2018.Kates M, Sopko N, Han M, Partin A and Epstein J (2018) Importance of Reporting the Gleason Score at the Positive Surgical Margin Site: Analysis of 4,082 Consecutive Radical Prostatectomy CasesJournal of Urology, VOL. 195, NO. 2, (337-342), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2016.Eifler J, Sohn W and Barocas D (2018) Review Article: Best Evidence Regarding Contemporary Use of Prostate Cancer BiomarkersUrology Practice, VOL. 3, NO. 3, (210-217), Online publication date: 1-May-2016.Karnes R, Murphy C, Bergstralh E, DiMonte G, Cheville J, Lowe V, Mynderse L and Kwon E (2018) Salvage Lymph Node Dissection for Prostate Cancer Nodal Recurrence Detected by 11C-Choline Positron Emission Tomography/Computerized TomographyJournal of Urology, VOL. 193, NO. 1, (111-116), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2015.Hussein A, Punnen S, Zhao S, Cowan J, Leapman M, Tran T, Washington S, Truesdale M, Carroll P and Cooperberg M (2018) Current Use of Imaging after Primary Treatment of Prostate CancerJournal of Urology, VOL. 194, NO. 1, (98-104), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2015.Jilg C, Schultze-Seemann W, Drendel V, Vach W, Wieser G, Krauss T, Jandausch A, Hölz S, Henne K, Reske S, Grosu A, Weber W and Rischke H (2018) Detection of Lymph Node Metastasis in Patients with Nodal Prostate Cancer Relapse Using 18F/11C-Choline Positron Emission Tomography/Computerized TomographyJournal of Urology, VOL. 192, NO. 1, (103-111), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2014.Humphrey P, Hickey T, Riley T, Mabie J, Bellinger A, Strother M and Andriole G (2018) Modified Gleason Grade of Prostatic Adenocarcinomas Detected in the PLCO Cancer Screening TrialJournal of Urology, VOL. 192, NO. 2, (391-395), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2014.Giovacchini G, Picchio M, Garcia-Parra R, Mapelli P, Briganti A, Montorsi F, Gianolli L and Messa C (2018) [11C]Choline Positron Emission Tomography/Computerized Tomography for Early Detection of Prostate Cancer Recurrence in Patients with Low Increasing Prostate Specific AntigenJournal of Urology, VOL. 189, NO. 1, (105-110), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2013.Ellison J, He C and Wood D (2018) Early Postoperative Urinary and Sexual Function Predicts Functional Recovery 1 Year after ProstatectomyJournal of Urology, VOL. 190, NO. 4, (1233-1239), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2013.Lavery H, Levinson A, Hobbs A, Sebrow D, Mohamed N, Diefenbach M and Samadi D (2018) Baseline Functional Status May Predict Decisional Regret Following Robotic ProstatectomyJournal of Urology, VOL. 188, NO. 6, (2213-2218), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2012.Jilg C, Rischke H, Reske S, Henne K, Grosu A, Weber W, Drendel V, Schwardt M, Jandausch A and Schultze-Seemann W (2018) Salvage Lymph Node Dissection with Adjuvant Radiotherapy for Nodal Recurrence of Prostate CancerJournal of Urology, VOL. 188, NO. 6, (2190-2197), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2012.Zakian K, Hricak H, Ishill N, Reuter V, Eberhardt S, Moskowitz C, Shukla-Dave A, Wang L, Scardino P, Eastham J and Koutcher J (2018) An Exploratory Study of Endorectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Spectroscopy of the Prostate as Preoperative Predictive Biomarkers of Biochemical Relapse After Radical ProstatectomyJournal of Urology, VOL. 184, NO. 6, (2320-2327), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2010.Pavlovich C, Trock B, Sulman A, Wagner A, Mettee L and Su L (2018) 3-Year Actuarial Biochemical Recurrence-Free Survival Following Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: Experience From a Tertiary Referral Center in the United StatesJournal of Urology, VOL. 179, NO. 3, (917-922), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2008.Srougi M (2018) Editorial CommentJournal of Urology, VOL. 179, NO. 6, (2210-2211), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2008.Peehl D, Coram M, Khine H, Reese S, Nolley R and Zhao H (2018) The Significance of Monoamine Oxidase-A Expression in High Grade Prostate CancerJournal of Urology, VOL. 180, NO. 5, (2206-2211), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2008.Schäfer W, Funke P, Kunde D, Rausch U, Wennemuth G and Stützer H (2018) Intensity of Androgen and Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Immunoreactivity in Samples of Radical Prostatectomy as Prognostic Indicator: Correlation With Clinical Data of Long-Term ObservationsJournal of Urology, VOL. 176, NO. 2, (532-537), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2006.SHEN S, LEPOR H, YAFFEE R and TANEJA S (2018) ULTRASENSITIVE SERUM PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN NADIR ACCURATELY PREDICTS THE RISK OF EARLY RELAPSE AFTER RADICAL PROSTATECTOMYJournal of Urology, VOL. 173, NO. 3, (777-780), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2005.KRYGIEL J, SMITH D, HOMAN S, SUMNER W, NEASE R, BROWNSON R and CATALONA W (2018) INTERMEDIATE TERM BIOCHEMICAL PROGRESSION RATES AFTER RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY AND RADIOTHERAPY IN PATIENTS WITH SCREEN DETECTED PROSTATE CANCERJournal of Urology, VOL. 174, NO. 1, (126-130), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2005.EGGENER S, ROEHL K and CATALONA W (2018) PREDICTORS OF SUBSEQUENT PROSTATE CANCER IN MEN WITH A PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN OF 2.6 TO 4.0 NG/ML AND AN INITIALLY NEGATIVE BIOPSYJournal of Urology, VOL. 174, NO. 2, (500-504), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2005.Nelson J (2018) Is Brachytherapy a Kinder, Gentler Treatment for Prostate Cancer?Journal of Urology, VOL. 171, NO. 3, (1109-1110), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2004.OKOTIE O, ARONSON W, WIEDER J, LIAO Y, DOREY F, deKERNION J and FREEDLAND S (2018) PREDICTORS OF METASTATIC DISEASE IN MEN WITH BIOCHEMICAL FAILURE FOLLOWING RADICAL PROSTATECTOMYJournal of Urology, VOL. 171, NO. 6 Part 1, (2260-2264), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2004.KAUFMAN J and GRAYDON R (2018) ANDROGEN REPLACEMENT AFTER CURATIVE RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY FOR PROSTATE CANCER IN HYPOGONADAL MENJournal of Urology, VOL. 172, NO. 3, (920-922), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2004.WARD J, BLUTE M, SLEZAK J, BERGSTRALH E and ZINCKE H (2018) The Long-Term Clinical Impact of Biochemical Recurrence of Prostate Cancer 5 or More Years After Radical ProstatectomyJournal of Urology, VOL. 170, NO. 5, (1872-1876), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2003.D’AMICO A, COTE K, LOFFREDO M, RENSHAW A and SCHULTZ D (2018) Determinants of Prostate Cancer Specific Survival Following Radiation Therapy During the Prostate Specific Antigen EraJournal of Urology, VOL. 170, NO. 6S, (S42-S47), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2003. Volume 169Issue 2February 2003Page: 517-523 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2003 by American Urological Association, Inc.KeywordsrecurrenceneoplasmsprostatectomyprognosisMetricsAuthor Information MISOP HAN More articles by this author ALAN W. PARTIN Financial interest and/or other relationship with Bayer, Hybritech, Merck, Urologix and Roche. More articles by this author MARIANNA ZAHURAK More articles by this author STEVEN PIANTADOSI More articles by this author JONATHAN I. EPSTEIN More articles by this author PATRICK C. WALSH More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ..." @default.
• W4295773257 created "2022-09-15" @default.
• W4295773257 creator A5002115361 @default.
• W4295773257 creator A5060234674 @default.
• W4295773257 creator A5062227791 @default.
• W4295773257 creator A5063449536 @default.
• W4295773257 creator A5075913396 @default.
• W4295773257 creator A5087391729 @default.
• W4295773257 date "2003-02-01" @default.
• W4295773257 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W4295773257 title "Biochemical (Prostate Specific Antigen) Recurrence Probability Following Radical Prostatectomy for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer" @default.
• W4295773257 cites W165132104 @default.
• W4295773257 cites W1819910556 @default.
• W4295773257 cites W1967770117 @default.
• W4295773257 cites W1973089211 @default.
• W4295773257 cites W1974788897 @default.
• W4295773257 cites W1983237820 @default.
• W4295773257 cites W2071879495 @default.
• W4295773257 cites W2089218007 @default.
• W4295773257 cites W2094806139 @default.
• W4295773257 cites W2152561234 @default.
• W4295773257 cites W2163276477 @default.
• W4295773257 cites W2262083923 @default.
• W4295773257 cites W2413099559 @default.
• W4295773257 cites W3041047318 @default.
• W4295773257 cites W31616992 @default.
• W4295773257 cites W3215447 @default.
• W4295773257 cites W4230398659 @default.
• W4295773257 cites W4252605154 @default.
• W4295773257 cites W4293658047 @default.
• W4295773257 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(05)63946-8" @default.
• W4295773257 hasPublicationYear "2003" @default.
• W4295773257 type Work @default.
• W4295773257 citedByCount "553" @default.
• W4295773257 countsByYear W42957732572012 @default.
• W4295773257 countsByYear W42957732572013 @default.
• W4295773257 countsByYear W42957732572014 @default.
• W4295773257 countsByYear W42957732572015 @default.
• W4295773257 countsByYear W42957732572016 @default.
• W4295773257 countsByYear W42957732572017 @default.
• W4295773257 countsByYear W42957732572018 @default.
• W4295773257 countsByYear W42957732572019 @default.
• W4295773257 countsByYear W42957732572020 @default.
• W4295773257 countsByYear W42957732572021 @default.
• W4295773257 countsByYear W42957732572022 @default.
• W4295773257 countsByYear W42957732572023 @default.
• W4295773257 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4295773257 hasAuthorship W4295773257A5002115361 @default.
• W4295773257 hasAuthorship W4295773257A5060234674 @default.
• W4295773257 hasAuthorship W4295773257A5062227791 @default.
• W4295773257 hasAuthorship W4295773257A5063449536 @default.
• W4295773257 hasAuthorship W4295773257A5075913396 @default.
• W4295773257 hasAuthorship W4295773257A5087391729 @default.
• W4295773257 hasConcept C121608353 @default.
• W4295773257 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W4295773257 hasConcept C126894567 @default.
• W4295773257 hasConcept C143998085 @default.
• W4295773257 hasConcept C2776235491 @default.
• W4295773257 hasConcept C2777008409 @default.
• W4295773257 hasConcept C2779466945 @default.
• W4295773257 hasConcept C2780192828 @default.
• W4295773257 hasConcept C2781406297 @default.
• W4295773257 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4295773257 hasConceptScore W4295773257C121608353 @default.
• W4295773257 hasConceptScore W4295773257C126322002 @default.
• W4295773257 hasConceptScore W4295773257C126894567 @default.
• W4295773257 hasConceptScore W4295773257C143998085 @default.
• W4295773257 hasConceptScore W4295773257C2776235491 @default.
• W4295773257 hasConceptScore W4295773257C2777008409 @default.
• W4295773257 hasConceptScore W4295773257C2779466945 @default.
• W4295773257 hasConceptScore W4295773257C2780192828 @default.
• W4295773257 hasConceptScore W4295773257C2781406297 @default.
• W4295773257 hasConceptScore W4295773257C71924100 @default.
• W4295773257 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W4295773257 hasLocation W42957732571 @default.
• W4295773257 hasOpenAccess W4295773257 @default.
• W4295773257 hasPrimaryLocation W42957732571 @default.
• W4295773257 hasRelatedWork W1181291060 @default.
• W4295773257 hasRelatedWork W1627654306 @default.
• W4295773257 hasRelatedWork W1967410728 @default.
• W4295773257 hasRelatedWork W1968792361 @default.
• W4295773257 hasRelatedWork W1988513079 @default.
• W4295773257 hasRelatedWork W3023689102 @default.
• W4295773257 hasRelatedWork W3150909901 @default.
• W4295773257 hasRelatedWork W4200381795 @default.
• W4295773257 hasRelatedWork W4241710403 @default.
• W4295773257 hasRelatedWork W4295773257 @default.
• W4295773257 hasVolume "169" @default.
• W4295773257 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4295773257 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4295773257 workType "article" @default.