The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate carcinoma in the prostate specific antigen era
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: To the authors' knowledge, consensus is lacking regarding the relative long‐term efficacy of radical prostatectomy (RP) versus conventional‐dose external beam radiation therapy (RT) in the treatment of patients with clinically localized prostate carcinoma. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of 2635 men treated with RP (n = 2254) or conventional‐dose RT (n = 381) between 1988–2000 was performed. The primary endpoint was prostate specific antigen (PSA) survival stratified by treatment received and high‐risk, intermediate‐risk, or low‐risk group based on the serum PSA level, biopsy Gleason score, 1992 American Joint Commission on Cancer clinical tumor category, and percent positive prostate biopsies. RESULTS: Estimates of 8‐year PSA survival (95% confidence interval [95% CI]) for low‐risk patients (T1c,T2a, a PSA level ≤ 10 ng/mL, and a Gleason score ≤ 6) were 88% (95% CI, 85, 90) versus 78% (95% CI, 72, 83) for RP versus patients treated with RT, respectively. Eight‐year estimates of PSA survival also favored RP for intermediate‐risk patients (T2b or Gleason score 7 or a PSA level > 10 and ≤ 20 ng/mL) with < 34% positive prostate biopsies, being 79% (95% CI, 73, 85) versus 65% (95% CI, 58, 72), respectively. Estimates of PSA survival in high‐risk (T2c or PSA level > 20 ng/mL or Gleason score ≥ 8) and intermediate‐risk patients with at least 34% positive prostate biopsies initially favored RT, but were not significantly different after 8 years. CONCLUSIONS: Intermediate‐risk and low‐risk patients with a low biopsy tumor volume who were treated with RP appeared to fare significantly better compared with patients who were treated using conventional‐dose RT. Intermediate‐risk and high‐risk patients with a high biopsy tumor volume who were treated with RP or RT had long‐term estimates of PSA survival that were not found to be significantly different. [See editorials on pages 211–4 and 215–8, this issue. Cancer 2002;95:281–6. © 2002 American Cancer Society. DOI 10.1002/cncr.10657
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Roach, M., Hanks, G., Thames, H., Schellhammer, P., Shipley, W. U., Sokol, G. H., & Sandler, H. (2006) · International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics · doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.04.029 · Cited by 2,749
Ramirez-Garrastacho, M., Bajo-Santos, C., Line, A., Martens-Uzunova, E. S., de la Fuente, J. M., Moros, M., Soekmadji, C., Tasken, K. A., & Llorente, A. (2022) · British Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1038/s41416-021-01610-8 · Cited by 130
Metadata
- Authors
- D'Amico, A. V., Whittington, R., Malkowicz, S. B., Cote, K., Loffredo, M., Schultz, D., Chen, M., Tomaszewski, J. E., Renshaw, A. A., Wein, A., & Richie, J. P.
- Venue
- Cancer
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-07-11
- Volume
- 95
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 281-286
- ISSN
- 0008-543X (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0142
- OpenAlex
- W2104022977
- Cited by
- 356
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate carcinoma in the prostate specific antigen era. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/cncr.10657
- The paper
- D'Amico, A. V., Whittington, R., Malkowicz, S. B., Cote, K., Loffredo, M., Schultz, D., Chen, M., Tomaszewski, J. E., Renshaw, A. A., Wein, A., & Richie, J. P. (2002). Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate carcinoma in the prostate specific antigen era. Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.10657
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
