The risk of biochemical recurrence for intermediate-risk prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy

References

• Antonarakis ES, Feng Z, Trock BJ, et al. The natural history of metastatic progression in men with prostate-specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy: long-term follow-up. BJU Int. 2012;109:32–39.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roder MA. Radical prostatectomy for clinically localised prostate cancer at Rigshospitalet 1995–2011: an analysis of surgical and oncological outcome. Dan Med J. 2013;60:B4752.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooperberg MR, Pasta DJ, Elkin EP, et al. The University of California, San Francisco Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score: a straightforward and reliable preoperative predictor of disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2005;173:1938–1942.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shariat SF, Karakiewicz PI, Margulis V, et al. Inventory of prostate cancer predictive tools. Curr Opin Urol. 2008;18:279–296.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate carcinoma in the prostate specific antigen era. Cancer. 2002;95:281–286.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roder MA, Berg KD, Gruschy L, et al. First Danish single-institution experience with radical prostatectomy: biochemical outcome in 1200 consecutive patients. Prostate Cancer. 2011;2011:236357.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zumsteg ZS, Spratt DE, Pei I, et al. A new risk classification system for therapeutic decision making with intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients undergoing dose-escalated external-beam radiation therapy. Eur Urol. 2013;64:895–902.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gandaglia G, Schiffmann J, Schlomm T, et al. Identification of pathologically favorable disease in intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients: implications for active surveillance candidates selection. Prostate. 2015;75:1484–1491.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brasso K, Ingeholm P, Iversen P. [Radical prostatectomy. The first 50 consecutive patients undergoing surgery at Rigshospitalet]. Ugeskr Laeg. 2001;163:5669–5673.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Berg KD, Thomsen FB, Hvarness H, et al. Early biochemical recurrence, urinary continence and potency outcomes following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Scand J Urol. 2014;48:356–366.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roder MA, Berg KD, Christensen IJ, et al. Radical prostatectomy in clinically localized high-risk prostate cancer: outcome of 231 consecutive patients. Scand J Urol. 2013;47:19–25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aus G, Abrahamsson PA, Ahlgren G, et al. Three-month neoadjuvant hormonal therapy before radical prostatectomy: a 7-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. BJU Int. 2002;90:561–566.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soloway MS, Pareek K, Sharifi R, et al. Neoadjuvant androgen ablation before radical prostatectomy in cT2bNxMo prostate cancer: 5-year results. J Urol. 2002;167:112–116.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, et al. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:1228–1242.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sobin LH. TNM: new developments in general concepts and rules. Semin Surg Oncol. 2003;21:19–22.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1998;280:969–974.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walsh PC. Anatomic radical prostatectomy: evolution of the surgical technique. J Urol. 1998;160:2418–2424.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gray RJ. A class of K-sample tests for comparing the cumulative incidence of a competing risk. Ann Statist. 1988;16:1141–1154.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roder MA, Brasso K, Christensen IJ, et al. Survival after radical prostatectomy for clinically localised prostate cancer: a population-based study. BJU Int. 2014;113:541–547.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morisot A, Bessaoud F, Landais P, et al. Prostate cancer: net survival and cause-specific survival rates after multiple imputation. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015;15:54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Predicting prostate specific antigen outcome preoperatively in the prostate specific antigen era. J Urol. 2001;166:2185–2188.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boorjian SA, Karnes RJ, Rangel LJ, et al. Mayo Clinic validation of the D'amico risk group classification for predicting survival following radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2008;179:1354–1360. Discussion 60-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roehl KA, Han M, Ramos CG, et al. Cancer progression and survival rates following anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy in 3,478 consecutive patients: long-term results. J Urol. 2004;172:910–914.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD, et al. A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason score. Eur Urol. 2016;69:428–435.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berg KD, Thomsen FB, Nerstrom C, et al. The impact of the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology consensus guidelines on Gleason grading: a matched-pair analysis. BJU Int. 2016;117:883–889.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Southern DA, Faris PD, Brant R, et al. Kaplan-Meier methods yielded misleading results in competing risk scenarios. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:1110–1114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Narita S, Mitsuzuka K, Tsuchiya N, et al. Reassessment of the risk factors for biochemical recurrence in D’Amico intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated using radical prostatectomy. Int J Urol. 2015;22:1029–1035.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang CC, Kong MX, Zhou M, et al. Gleason score 3 + 4=7 prostate cancer with minimal quantity of gleason pattern 4 on needle biopsy is associated with low-risk tumor in radical prostatectomy specimen. Am J Surg Pathol. 2014;38:1096–1101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, et al. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40:244–252.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Varenhorst E, Berglund K, Lofman O, et al. Inter-observer variation in assessment of the prostate by digital rectal examination. Br J Urol. 1993;72:173–176.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Røder MA, Berg KD, Loft MD, et al. The CPC risk calculator: a new app to predict prostate-specific antigen recurrence during follow-up after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol Focus. 2016. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2016.11.014
   Google Scholar
• Thomsen FB, Brasso K, Klotz LH, et al. Active surveillance for clinically localized prostate cancer: a systematic review. J Surg Oncol. 2014;109:830–835.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:203–213.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Garmo H, et al. Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:932–942.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar