Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 555

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Intermediate and Longer-Term Outcomes From a Prospective Active-Surveillance Program for Favorable-Risk Prostate Cancer

Open access
Tosoian, Jeffrey J., Mamawala, Mufaddal, Epstein, Jonathan I., Landis, Patricia, Wolf, Sacha, Trock, Bruce J., Carter, H. Ballentine·2015·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: To assess long-term outcomes of men with favorable-risk prostate cancer in a prospective, active-surveillance program. Methods: Curative intervention was recommended for disease reclassification to higher cancer grade or volume on prostate biopsy. Primary outcomes were overall, cancer-specific, and metastasis-free survival. Secondary outcomes were the cumulative incidence of reclassification and curative intervention. Factors associated with grade reclassification and curative intervention were evaluated in a Cox proportional hazards model. Results: A total of 1,298 men (median age, 66 years) with a median follow-up of 5 years (range, 0.01 to 18.00 years) contributed 6,766 person-years of follow-up since 1995. Overall, cancer-specific, and metastasis-free survival rates were 93%, 99.9%, and 99.4%, respectively, at 10 years and 69%, 99.9%, and 99.4%, respectively, at 15 years. The cumulative incidence of grade reclassification was 26% at 10 years and was 31% at 15 years; cumulative incidence of curative intervention was 50% at 10 years and was 57% at 15 years. The median treatment-free survival was 8.5 years (range, 0.01 to 18 years). Factors associated with grade reclassification were older age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.03 for each additional year; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.06), prostate-specific antigen density (HR, 1.21 per 0.1 unit increase; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.46), and greater number of positive biopsy cores (HR, 1.47 for each additional positive core; 95% CI, 1.26 to 1.69). Factors associated with intervention were prostate-specific antigen density (HR, 1.38 per 0.1 unit increase; 95% CI, 1.22 to 1.56) and a greater number of positive biopsy cores (HR, 1.35 for one additional positive core; 95% CI, 1.19 to 1.53). Conclusion: Men with favorable-risk prostate cancer should be informed of the low likelihood of harm from their diagnosis and should be encouraged to consider surveillance rather than curative intervention.

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.2015.62.5764

Cites

18 of 18 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 18 references

Metadata

Authors
Tosoian, J. J., Mamawala, M., Epstein, J. I., Landis, P., Wolf, S., Trock, B. J., & Carter, H. B.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2015-10-20
Volume
33
Issue
30
Pages
3379-3385
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2140583819
Cited by
555
References
18
FWCI
55.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Intermediate and Longer-Term Outcomes From a Prospective Active-Surveillance Program for Favorable-Risk Prostate Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2015.62.5764
The paper
Tosoian, J. J., Mamawala, M., Epstein, J. I., Landis, P., Wolf, S., Trock, B. J., & Carter, H. B. (2015). Intermediate and Longer-Term Outcomes From a Prospective Active-Surveillance Program for Favorable-Risk Prostate Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2015.62.5764

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.