Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 523

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prognostic Value of Biochemical Recurrence Following Treatment with Curative Intent for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review

Open access
Van den Broeck, Thomas, van den Bergh, Roderick C.N., Arfi, Nicolas, Gross, Tobias, Moris, Lisa, Briers, Erik, Cumberbatch, Marcus, De Santis, Maria, Tilki, Derya, Fanti, Stefano, Fossati, Nicola, Gillessen, Silke, Grummet, Jeremy P., Henry, Ann M., Lardas, Michael, Liew, Matthew, Rouvière, Olivier, Pecanka, Jakub, Mason, Malcolm D., Schoots, Ivo G., van Der Kwast, Theo H., van Der Poel, Henk G., Wiegel, Thomas, Willemse, Peter-Paul M., Yuan, Yuhong, Lam, Thomas B., Cornford, Philip, Mottet, Nicolas·2019·European Urology

Abstract

CONTEXT In men with prostate cancer (PCa) treated with curative intent, controversy exists regarding the impact of biochemical recurrence (BCR) on oncological outcomes. OBJECTIVE To perform a systematic review of the existing literature on BCR after treatment with curative intent for nonmetastatic PCa. Objective 1 is to investigate whether oncological outcomes differ between patients with or without BCR. Objective 2 is to study which clinical factors and tumor features in patients with BCR have an independent prognostic impact on oncological outcomes. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION Medline, Medline In-Process, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. For objective 1, prospective and retrospective studies comparing survival outcomes of patients with or without BCR following radical prostatectomy (RP) or radical radiotherapy (RT) were included. For objective 2, all studies with at least 100 participants and reporting on prognostic patient and tumor characteristics in patients with BCR were included. Risk-of-bias and confounding assessments were performed according to the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool. Both a narrative synthesis and a meta-analysis were undertaken. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Overall, 77 studies were included for analysis, of which 14 addressed objective 1, recruiting 20 406 patients. Objective 2 was addressed by 71 studies with 29 057, 11 301, and 4272 patients undergoing RP, RT, and a mixed population (mix of patients undergoing RP or RT as primary treatment), respectively. There was a low risk of bias for study participation, confounders, and statistical analysis. For most studies, attrition bias, and prognostic and outcome measurements were not clearly reported. BCR was associated with worse survival rates, mainly in patients with short prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSA-DT) and a high final Gleason score after RP, or a short interval to biochemical failure (IBF) after RT and a high biopsy Gleason score. CONCLUSIONS BCR has an impact on survival, but this effect appears to be limited to a subgroup of patients with specific clinical risk factors. Short PSA-DT and a high final Gleason score after RP, and a short IBF after RT and a high biopsy Gleason score are the main factors that have a negative impact on survival. These factors may form the basis of new BCR risk stratification (European Association of Urology BCR Risk Groups), which needs to be validated formally. PATIENT SUMMARY This review looks at the risk of death in men who shows rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in the blood test performed after curative surgery or radiotherapy. For many men, rising PSA does not mean that they are at a high risk of death from prostate cancer in the longer term. Men with PSA that rises shortly after they were treated with radiotherapy or rapidly rising PSA after surgery and a high tumor grade for both treatment modalities are at the highest risk of death. These factors may form the basis of new risk stratification (European Association of Urology biochemical recurrence Risk Groups), which needs to be validated formally.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.10.011

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 51 references

Cited by

See all 523

Metadata

Authors
Van den Broeck, T., van den Bergh, R. C. N., Arfi, N., Gross, T., Moris, L., Briers, E., Cumberbatch, M., De Santis, M., Tilki, D., Fanti, S., Fossati, N., Gillessen, S., Grummet, J. P., Henry, A. M., Lardas, M., Liew, M., Rouvière, O., Pecanka, J., Mason, M. D., Schoots, I. G., van Der Kwast, T. H., van Der Poel, H. G., Wiegel, T., Willemse, P.-P. M., Yuan, Y., Lam, T. B., Cornford, P., & Mottet, N.
Venue
European Urology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-06
Volume
75
Issue
6
Pages
967-987
ISSN
0302-2838 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2897445406
Cited by
523
References
51
FWCI
7.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Prognostic Value of Biochemical Recurrence Following Treatment with Curative Intent for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.10.011
The paper
Van den Broeck, T., van den Bergh, R. C. N., Arfi, N., Gross, T., Moris, L., Briers, E., Cumberbatch, M., De Santis, M., Tilki, D., Fanti, S., Fossati, N., Gillessen, S., Grummet, J. P., Henry, A. M., Lardas, M., Liew, M., Rouvière, O., Pecanka, J., Mason, M. D., . . . Mottet, N. (2019). Prognostic Value of Biochemical Recurrence Following Treatment with Curative Intent for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review. European Urology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.10.011

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.