The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Contemporary Risk Profile of Prostate Cancer in the United States
Open accessAbstract
National-level data that characterize contemporary prostate cancer patients are limited. We used 2004-2005 data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program to generate a contemporary profile of prostate cancer patients (N = 82 541) and compared patient characteristics of this 2004-2005 population with those of patients diagnosed in 1998-1989 and 1996-1997. Among newly diagnosed patients in 2004-2005, the majority (94%) had localized (ie, stage T1 or T2) prostate cancer and a median serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of 6.7 ng/mL. Between 1988-1989 and 2004-2005, the average age at prostate cancer diagnosis decreased from 72.2 to 67.2 years, and the incidence rate of T3 or T4 cancer decreased from 52.7 per 100 000 to 7.9 per 100 000 among whites and from 90.9 per 100 000 to 13.3 per 100 000 among blacks. In 2004-2005, compared with whites, blacks were more likely to be diagnosed at a younger age (mean age: 64.7 vs 67.5 years, difference = 2.7 years, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.5 to 2.9 years, P < .001) and to have a higher PSA level at diagnosis (median PSA level: 7.4 vs 6.6 ng/mL, difference = 0.8 ng/mL, 95% CI = 0.6 to 1.0 ng/mL, P < .001). In conclusion, more men were diagnosed with prostate cancer at a younger age and earlier stage in 2004-2005 than in earlier years. The racial disparity in cancer stage at diagnosis has decreased statistically significantly over time.
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
Cites
Radical Prostatectomy versus Watchful Waiting in Early Prostate Cancer
Bill-Axelson, A., Holmberg, L., Ruutu, M., Häggman, M., Andersson, S.-O., Bratell, S., Spångberg, A., Busch, C., Nordling, S., Garmo, H., et al. (2005) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa043739 · Cited by 1,111
Cited by
Radical Prostatectomy versus Observation for Localized Prostate Cancer
Wilt, T. J., Brawer, M. K., Jones, K. M., Barry, M. J., Aronson, W. J., Fox, S., Gingrich, J. R., Wei, J. T., Gilhooly, P., Grob, B. M., et al. (2012) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1113162 · Cited by 1,770
Briganti, A., Larcher, A., Abdollah, F., Capitanio, U., Gallina, A., Suardi, N., Bianchi, M., Sun, M., Freschi, M., Salonia, A., et al. (2012) · European Urology · doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2011.10.044 · Cited by 786
Raman, J. D., Messer, J., Sielatycki, J. A., & Hollenbeak, C. S. (2011) · BJU International · doi:10.1111/j.1464-410x.2010.09675.x · Cited by 364
Lalonde, E., Ishkanian, A. S., Sykes, J., Fraser, M., Ross-Adams, H., Erho, N., Dunning, M. J., Halim, S., Lamb, A. D., Moon, N. C., et al. (2014) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(14)71021-6 · Cited by 342
Patients' perspective on digital technologies in advanced genitourinary cancers
Rodler, S., Buchner, A., Stief, C. G., Heinemann, V., Staehler, M., & Casuscelli, J. (2021) · Clinical Genitourinary Cancer · doi:10.1016/j.clgc.2020.03.018 · Cited by 27
Metadata
- Authors
- Shao, Y.-H., Demissie, K., Shih, W., Mehta, A. R., Stein, M. N., Roberts, C. B., DiPaola, R. S., & Lu-Yao, G. L.
- Venue
- JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2009-09
- Volume
- 101
- Issue
- 18
- Pages
- 1280-1283
- ISSN
- 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2105
- OpenAlex
- W2146822966
- Cited by
- 269
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 20.58
- 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: Contemporary Risk Profile of Prostate Cancer in the United States. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/djp262
- The paper
- Shao, Y.-H., Demissie, K., Shih, W., Mehta, A. R., Stein, M. N., Roberts, C. B., DiPaola, R. S., & Lu-Yao, G. L. (2009). Contemporary Risk Profile of Prostate Cancer in the United States. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djp262
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.