Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 529

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Defining Biochemical Recurrence of Prostate Cancer After Radical Prostatectomy: A Proposal for a Standardized Definition

Stephenson, Andrew J., Kattan, Michael W., Eastham, James A., Dotan, Zohar A., Bianco, Fernando J., Lilja, Hans, Scardino, Peter T.·2006·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) defined biochemical recurrence (BCR) of prostate cancer is widely used for reporting the outcome of radical prostatectomy (RP). A standardized BCR definition is lacking, and overall progression-free probability and risk of subsequent metastatic disease progression may vary greatly depending on the PSA criterion used. Ten definitions of BCR were evaluated to identify the one that best explains metastatic progression. Methods: Of 3,125 patients who underwent RP at our institution since 1985, 75 developed distant metastasis during a median follow-up of 49 months. To predict metastasis progression, we modeled the clinical information using multivariable Cox regression analysis. BCR was included in the model as a time-dependent covariate, and separate models were developed for each definition. A goodness-of-fit (R 2) statistic was used to determine the Cox model (and thereby the BCR definition) that best explained metastatic progression. Results: The 10-year progression-free probability ranged from 63% to 79%, depending on the BCR definition. The model containing BCR defined as a PSA of at least 0.4 ng/mL followed by another increase best explained metastatic progression (R 2 = 0.21). This definition was also associated with a high probability of subsequent secondary therapy, continued PSA progression, and rapid PSA doubling time. Conclusion: BCR defined as a PSA value of at least 0.4 ng/mL followed by another increase best explains the development of distant metastasis among 10 candidate definitions, after controlling for clinical variables and the use of secondary therapy. On the basis of this evidence, we propose that this definition be adopted as the standard for reporting the outcome of RP.

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 · 10.1200/jco.2005.04.0756

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 529

Metadata

Authors
Stephenson, A. J., Kattan, M. W., Eastham, J. A., Dotan, Z. A., Bianco, F. J., Lilja, H., & Scardino, P. T.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2006-08-20
Volume
24
Issue
24
Pages
3973-3978
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2100001148
Cited by
529
References
2
FWCI
19.59
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 Biochemical Recurrence of Prostate Cancer After Radical Prostatectomy: A Proposal for a Standardized Definition. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2005.04.0756
The paper
Stephenson, A. J., Kattan, M. W., Eastham, J. A., Dotan, Z. A., Bianco, F. J., Lilja, H., & Scardino, P. T. (2006). Defining Biochemical Recurrence of Prostate Cancer After Radical Prostatectomy: A Proposal for a Standardized Definition. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2005.04.0756

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.