Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 408

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

DEFINING PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN PROGRESSION AFTER RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY: WHAT IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE CUT POINT?

AMLING, CHRISTOPHER L., BERGSTRALH, ERIK J., BLUTE, MICHAEL L., SLEZAK, JEFFREY M., ZINCKE, HORST·2001·Journal of Urology

Abstract

PURPOSE: The most appropriate definition of biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy is uncertain. We analyzed the effect of using various prostate specific antigen (PSA) end point definitions for defining biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy and attempted to determine the best PSA cut point to use. Aspects of the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) definition of biochemical failure after radiation therapy are also analyzed in our radical prostatectomy cases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 2,782 men with clinically localized prostate cancer (cT1-T2) who had undergone radical prostatectomy between 1987 and 1993 were reviewed. All patients had regular PSA determinations from surgery through followup. Analysis was limited to patients who did not receive adjuvant treatment within 90 days of radical prostatectomy. Biochemical, PSA progression-free percent after radical prostatectomy was determined by the Kaplan-Meier method using several PSA cut points, including 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5 ng./ml. or greater, as well as 0.4 ng./ml. or greater and increasing. Progression-free percent was also assessed using the ASTRO definition, which is 3 increases in PSA. To determine which PSA level was most appropriate to define progression after radical prostatectomy, the percentage of patients with a continued PSA increase after reaching each cut point was determined. The relationship between the maximum PSA within 3 years of surgery and subsequent development of clinical disease was also assessed. RESULTS: Progression-free percent was dependent on the PSA cut point used. Biochemical progression-free percentages for cut points 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5 ng./ml. or greater were 62%, 72%, 76% and 78% at 5 years, and 43%, 54%, 59% and 61% at 10 years, respectively. A subsequent increase in PSA was noted in 49%, 62% and 72% of patients who had PSA 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4 ng./ml., respectively. Subsequent clinical progression (local or systemic) was directly related to the maximum PSA attained within 3 years of radical prostatectomy (p=0.0001). Progression-free percent for definitions requiring multiple increases in PSA were dependent on when the event was said to occur. Backdating of events at or before the first PSA (ASTRO definition) resulted in poorer, short-term progression-free percent (78% at 5 years), with little apparent likelihood of long-term failure (78% at 10 years). Coding the event at the last PSA increase when all event criteria had been met resulted in more realistic progression-free percent estimates (85% at 5 and 59% at 10 years). CONCLUSIONS: Biochemical, PSA progression rates vary markedly depending on the method used to define PSA failure. Methods that require multiple increasing PSA values, for example the ASTRO definition, give misleading results, especially if the event time is backdated. Standards for defining PSA progression would allow more consistent and comparable progression estimates after radical prostatectomy. PSA 0.4 ng./ml. or greater may be the most appropriate cut point to use since a significant number of patients with lower PSA do not have a continued increase in it.

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/s0022-5347(05)66452-x

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.

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

Cited by

See all 408

Metadata

Authors
AMLING, C. L., BERGSTRALH, E. J., BLUTE, M. L., SLEZAK, J. M., & ZINCKE, H.
Venue
Journal of Urology
Published
2001-04
Volume
165
Issue
4
Pages
1146-1151
ISSN
  • 0022-5347 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-3792
OpenAlex
W2023475404
Cited by
408
References
0
FWCI
24.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: DEFINING PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN PROGRESSION AFTER RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY: WHAT IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE CUT POINT? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0022-5347(05)66452-x
The paper
AMLING, C. L., BERGSTRALH, E. J., BLUTE, M. L., SLEZAK, J. M., & ZINCKE, H. (2001). DEFINING PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN PROGRESSION AFTER RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY: WHAT IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE CUT POINT? Journal of Urology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(05)66452-x

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.