The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A Preoperative Nomogram for Disease Recurrence Following Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few published studies have combined clinical prognostic factors into risk profiles that can be used to predict the likelihood of recurrence or metastatic progression in patients following treatment of prostate cancer. We developed a nomogram that allows prediction of disease recurrence through use of preoperative clinical factors for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer who are candidates for treatment with a radical prostatectomy. METHODS: By use of Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, we modeled the clinical data and disease follow-up for 983 men with clinically localized prostate cancer whom we intended to treat with a radical prostatectomy. Clinical data included pretreatment serum prostate-specific antigen levels, biopsy Gleason scores, and clinical stage. Treatment failure was recorded when there was clinical evidence of disease recurrence, a rising serum prostate-specific antigen level (two measurements of 0.4 ng/mL or greater and rising), or initiation of adjuvant therapy. Validation was performed on a separate sample of 168 men, also from our institution. RESULTS: Treatment failure (i.e., cancer recurrence) was noted in 196 of the 983 men, and the patients without failure had a median follow-up of 30 months (range, 1-146 months). The 5-year probability of freedom from failure for the cohort was 73% (95% confidence interval = 69%-76%). The predictions from the nomogram appeared accurate and discriminating, with a validation sample area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (i.e., comparison of the predicted probability with the actual outcome) of 0.79. CONCLUSIONS: A nomogram has been developed that can be used to predict the 5-year probability of treatment failure among men with clinically localized prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy.
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
Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models
Vickers, A. J., & Elkin, E. B. (2006) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x06295361 · Cited by 6,341
Explaining prediction models and individual predictions with feature contributions
Štrumbelj, E., & Kononenko, I. (2014) · Knowledge and Information Systems · doi:10.1007/s10115-013-0679-x · Cited by 2,286
CANCER CONTROL WITH RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY ALONE IN 1,000 CONSECUTIVE PATIENTS
HULL, G. W., RABBANI, F., ABBAS, F., WHEELER, T. M., KATTAN, M. W., & SCARDINO, P. T. (2002) · Journal of Urology · doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(01)69079-7 · Cited by 964
Self-citationPredictive data mining in clinical medicine: Current issues and guidelines
BELLAZZI, R., & ZUPAN, B. (2008) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2006.11.006 · Cited by 823
D’Amico, A. V., Moul, J., Carroll, P. R., Sun, L., Lubeck, D., & Chen, M.-H. (2003) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2003.01.075 · Cited by 455
Metadata
- Authors
- Kattan, M. W., Eastham, J. A., Stapleton, A. M. F., Wheeler, T. M., & Scardino, P. T.
- Venue
- JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1998-05-20
- Volume
- 90
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 766-771
- ISSN
- 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2105
- OpenAlex
- W2152561234
- Cited by
- 1,242
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 29.43
- 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: A Preoperative Nomogram for Disease Recurrence Following Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/90.10.766
- The paper
- Kattan, M. W., Eastham, J. A., Stapleton, A. M. F., Wheeler, T. M., & Scardino, P. T. (1998). A Preoperative Nomogram for Disease Recurrence Following Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/90.10.766
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.