Display options
Cite
Nielsen ME, Partin AW. The impact of definitions of failure on the interpretation of biochemical recurrence following treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. Rev Urol. 2007;9(2):57-62
Nielsen, M. E., & Partin, A. W. (2007). The impact of definitions of failure on the interpretation of biochemical recurrence following treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. Reviews in urology, 9(2), 57-62.
Nielsen, Matthew E, and Partin, Alan W. "The impact of definitions of failure on the interpretation of biochemical recurrence following treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer." Reviews in urology vol. 9,2 (2007): 57-62.
Nielsen ME, Partin AW. The impact of definitions of failure on the interpretation of biochemical recurrence following treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. Rev Urol. 2007;9(2):57-62. PMID: 17592538; PMCID: PMC1892622.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Rev Urol. 2007;9(2):57-62.

The impact of definitions of failure on the interpretation of biochemical recurrence following treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer.

Reviews in urology

Matthew E Nielsen, Alan W Partin

Affiliations

  1. The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Department of Urology, The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions and Hospital Baltimore, MD.

PMID: 17592538 PMCID: PMC1892622

Abstract

Widespread early detection with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) has radically transformed the clinical management of prostate cancer. PSA has become valuable in the monitoring and risk stratification of recurrent disease following local therapy. In many ways, biochemical recurrence-free survival, or PSA outcome, has become a surrogate measure of treatment efficacy following primary local therapy. Given the inherent differences in PSA kinetics following these treatment approaches, the definition of biochemical success or failure is not uniform among therapies. An appreciation of the inherent strengths, limitations, and biases of the standard definitions of failure can provide a more meaningful context within which to interpret the reported outcomes of different treatment modalities.

References

  1. Urology. 2002 May;59(5):726-31 - PubMed
  2. J Urol. 2001 Aug;166(2):416-9 - PubMed
  3. Urology. 2003 Feb;61(2):365-9 - PubMed
  4. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003 Sep 17;95(18):1376-83 - PubMed
  5. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003 Nov 15;57(4):929-43 - PubMed
  6. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005 Feb 1;61(2):409-14 - PubMed
  7. J Urol. 2005 Mar;173(3):797-802 - PubMed
  8. CA Cancer J Clin. 2006 Mar-Apr;56(2):106-30 - PubMed
  9. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Aug 1;65(5):1487-93 - PubMed
  10. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Jul 15;65(4):965-74 - PubMed
  11. J Clin Oncol. 2006 Aug 20;24(24):3973-8 - PubMed
  12. J Urol. 1988 Apr;139(4):766-72 - PubMed
  13. J Urol. 1989 Apr;141(4):873-9 - PubMed
  14. Cancer Res. 1981 Oct;41(10):3874-6 - PubMed
  15. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997 Mar 15;37(5):1035-41 - PubMed
  16. J Urol. 1997 Oct;158(4):1427-30 - PubMed
  17. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999 Jun 16;91(12):1017-24 - PubMed
  18. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999 Oct 1;45(3):553-61 - PubMed
  19. Semin Urol Oncol. 2000 May;18(2):83-92 - PubMed
  20. J Clin Oncol. 2001 Feb 15;19(4):1030-9 - PubMed
  21. J Urol. 2001 Apr;165(4):1146-51 - PubMed
  22. J Urol. 2002 Oct;168(4 Pt 1):1419-22 - PubMed

Publication Types