The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Prediction of Progression Following Radical Prostatectomy: A Multivariate Analysis of 721 Men with Long-term Follow-up
Abstract
We studied 721 men with clinically confined disease who underwent radical prostatectomy. No patient received preoperative or postoperative radiotherapy or hormone therapy until progression occurred. For those men without progression, the mean follow-up was 6.5 years with a median of 6 years (range 1 to 12 years). Because patients with lymph node metastases or seminal vesicle invasion had such a high risk of progression, enhanced prognostication was not needed in men with these findings. Thus we focused this analysis on the 617 men without lymph node metastases or seminal vesicle invasion. In the multivariate analysis, Gleason score (P < 0.0001), surgical margins (P = 0.004), and capsular penetration (P = 0.007) were all independent predictors of progression. Tumors with a Gleason score of 2 through 4 were almost invariably cured, with a 10-year progression-free risk of 96%. At the opposite end of the spectrum, the 10-year actuarial progression-free risk for men with a Gleason score of 8 through 9 was 35%. Men with Gleason score 2 through 4 or 8 through 9 tumors could not be stratified into different risks of progression based on the presence or extent of capsular penetration or margin status. For the men with Gleason score 5 through 7 tumors (88.2% of cases), predicting their risk of progression was enhanced by knowledge of their tumor's capsular penetration and margin status. Tumors with a Gleason score of 5 through 6 and 7 were each stratified into three groups with different risks of progression. Using the actuarial curves within this study, physicians will be able to more accurately determine a patient's risk of progression following radical prostatectomy based on a combination of the radical prostatectomy Gleason score, extent of capsular penetration, and status of surgical margins of resection.
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
Albertsen, P. C. (1998) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.280.11.975 · Cited by 717
Hambrock, T., Somford, D. M., Huisman, H. J., van Oort, I. M., Witjes, J. A., Hulsbergen-van de Kaa, C. A., Scheenen, T., & Barentsz, J. O. (2011) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.11091409 · Cited by 572
Hypermethylation of CpG Islands in Primary and Metastatic Human Prostate Cancer
Yegnasubramanian, S., Kowalski, J., Gonzalgo, M. L., Zahurak, M., Piantadosi, S., Walsh, P. C., Bova, G. S., De Marzo, A. M., Isaacs, W. B., & Nelson, W. G. (2004) · Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/0008-5472.can-03-3972 · Cited by 527
Self-citationProstate Specific Antigen Best Practice Statement: 2009 Update
Greene, K. L., Albertsen, P. C., Babaian, R. J., Carter, H. B., Gann, P. H., Han, M., Kuban, D. A., Sartor, A. O., Stanford, J. L., Zietman, A., et al. (2009) · Journal of Urology · doi:10.1016/j.juro.2009.07.093 · Cited by 517
Pathological and molecular aspects of prostate cancer
DeMarzo, A. M., Nelson, W. G., Isaacs, W. B., & Epstein, J. I. (2003) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(03)12779-1 · Cited by 472
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Epstein, J. I., Partin, A. W., Sauvageot, J., & Walsh, P. C.
- Venue
- The American Journal of Surgical Pathology
- Published
- 1996-03
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 286-292
- ISSN
- 0147-5185 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2329106677
- Cited by
- 562
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 30.41
- 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: Prediction of Progression Following Radical Prostatectomy: A Multivariate Analysis of 721 Men with Long-term Follow-up. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00000478-199603000-00004
- The paper
- Epstein, J. I., Partin, A. W., Sauvageot, J., & Walsh, P. C. (1996). Prediction of Progression Following Radical Prostatectomy: A Multivariate Analysis of 721 Men with Long-term Follow-up. The American Journal of Surgical Pathology. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000478-199603000-00004
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.