The University of Chicago Header Logo

Connection

Scott E. Eggener to Prostatic Neoplasms

Back to Details
This is a "connection" page, showing publications Scott E. Eggener has written about Prostatic Neoplasms.
Scott E. Eggener
Connection Strength
27.763
Prostatic Neoplasms
  1. Amount of Gleason Pattern 3 Is Not Predictive of Risk in Grade Group 2-4 Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol. 2024 Jul; 86(1):1-3.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.414
  2. Time to stop reporting estimates of any prostate cancer risk with percentage of free prostate-specific antigen. Am J Clin Pathol. 2024 Jan 04; 161(1):1-3.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.412
  3. The influence of the "cancer" label on perceptions and management decisions for low-grade prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2023 11 08; 115(11):1364-1373.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.408
  4. Improving reader accuracy and specificity with the addition of hybrid multidimensional-MRI to multiparametric-MRI in diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancers. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2023 10; 48(10):3216-3228.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.398
  5. Physician Perception of Grade Group 1 Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol Focus. 2023 11; 9(6):966-973.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.393
  6. Risk Stratification of Low-risk Prostate Cancer: Individualizing Care in the Era of Active Surveillance. J Urol. 2023 07; 210(1):38-45.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.392
  7. Focal Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Evolutionary Parallels to Breast Cancer Treatment. J Urol. 2023 01; 209(1):49-57.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.377
  8. Blood Prostate-specific Antigen by Volume of Benign, Gleason Pattern 3 and 4 Prostate Tissue. Urology. 2022 12; 170:154-160.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.375
  9. Low-Grade Prostate Cancer: Time to Stop Calling It Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2022 09 20; 40(27):3110-3114.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.366
  10. Prostate Cancer, Decisional Regret and Exercise. J Urol. 2022 05; 207(5):952-953.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.360
  11. Re: NCCN Prostate Cancer Guidelines Version 1.2022 - September 10, 2021. Eur Urol. 2022 02; 81(2):218.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.357
  12. Active Surveillance: Very Much "Preferred" for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer. J Urol. 2022 02; 207(2):262-264.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.356
  13. How Should Molecular Markers and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Be Used in the Early Detection of Prostate Cancer? Eur Urol Oncol. 2022 04; 5(2):135-137.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.338
  14. Should Grade Group 1 (GG1) be called cancer? World J Urol. 2022 Jan; 40(1):15-19.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.335
  15. Prostate Cancer Outcomes Following Solid-Organ Transplantation: A SEER-Medicare Analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020 08 01; 112(8):847-854.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.325
  16. Prostate-specific Antigen to Predict Early Success of Focal Therapy: Focusing on Appropriate Endpoints. Eur Urol. 2020 08; 78(2):161-162.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.323
  17. Editorial Comment. J Urol. 2020 08; 204(2):287.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.321
  18. Molecular Biomarkers in Localized Prostate Cancer: ASCO Guideline Summary. JCO Oncol Pract. 2020 06; 16(6):340-343.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.314
  19. Molecular Biomarkers in Localized Prostate Cancer: ASCO Guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2020 05 01; 38(13):1474-1494.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.311
  20. Recognizing and minimizing bias: Helping patients make their best choice for prostate cancer management through multidisciplinary clinics. Cancer. 2020 02 01; 126(3):470-472.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.310
  21. Editorial Comment. J Urol. 2019 11; 202(5):942-943.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.307
  22. Editorial Comment. J Urol. 2019 08; 202(2):263.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.302
  23. Re: Use of Active Surveillance or Watchful Waiting for Low-risk Prostate Cancer and Management Trends Across Risk Groups in the United States 2010-2015. Eur Urol. 2019 08; 76(2):252.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.297
  24. Editorial Comment. J Urol. 2019 02; 201(2):266-267.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.293
  25. A 17-gene Panel for Prediction of Adverse Prostate Cancer Pathologic Features: Prospective Clinical Validation and Utility. Urology. 2019 04; 126:76-82.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.291
  26. "Real-world" Practice Makes Perfect: Ensuring the Active Component of Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol. 2018 12; 74(6):708-709.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.285
  27. Incidence, Risk Factors, and Outcomes for Rectal Injury During Radical Prostatectomy: A Population-based Study. Eur Urol Oncol. 2018 12; 1(6):501-506.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.281
  28. Novel focal therapy treatment options for prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol. 2018 03; 28(2):178-183.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.275
  29. Prostate Cancer and the Evolving Role of Biomarkers in Screening and Diagnosis. Radiol Clin North Am. 2018 Mar; 56(2):187-196.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.270
  30. Can Focal Treatment Replace Radical Treatment in Prostate Cancer? For Focal Therapy. Eur Urol Focus. 2017 12; 3(6):522-523.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.270
  31. Managing Cancer Relapse After Radical Prostatectomy: Adjuvant Versus Salvage Radiation Therapy. Urol Clin North Am. 2017 Nov; 44(4):597-609.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.269
  32. Contemporary management of men with high-risk localized prostate cancer in the United States. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2017 09; 20(3):283-288.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.262
  33. AUA Policy Statement on the Use of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis, Staging and Management of Prostate Cancer. J Urol. 2017 10; 198(4):832-838.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.260
  34. Prostate cancer detection following diagnosis of atypical small acinar proliferation. Can J Urol. 2017 Apr; 24(2):8714-8720.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.258
  35. Influence of pathologist experience on positive surgical margins following radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol. 2017 07; 35(7):461.e1-461.e6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.257
  36. Extraprostatic Extension Is Extremely Rare for Contemporary Gleason Score 6 Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol. 2017 09; 72(3):455-460.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.253
  37. Risk of lymph node metastases in pathological gleason score=6 prostate adenocarcinoma: Analysis of institutional and population-based databases. Urol Oncol. 2017 01; 35(1):31.e1-31.e6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.249
  38. Phase II Evaluation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Guided Focal Laser Ablation of Prostate Cancer. J Urol. 2016 12; 196(6):1670-1675.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.246
  39. Comparison of Perioperative and Early Oncologic Outcomes between Open and Robotic Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy in a Contemporary Population Based Cohort. J Urol. 2016 07; 196(1):76-81.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.238
  40. National Economic Conditions and Patient Insurance Status Predict Prostate Cancer Diagnosis Rates and Management Decisions. J Urol. 2016 May; 195(5):1383-1389.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.236
  41. Active surveillance monitoring: the role of novel biomarkers and imaging. Asian J Androl. 2015 Nov-Dec; 17(6):882-4; discussion 883.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.234
  42. Prostate Cancer Screening Biomarkers: An Emerging Embarrassment of 'Riches'? Eur Urol. 2016 07; 70(1):54-55.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.232
  43. Prostate Cancer Screening. JAMA. 2015 Aug 25; 314(8):825-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.231
  44. Contemporary Population-Based Comparison of Localized Ductal Adenocarcinoma and High-Risk Acinar Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate. Urology. 2015 Oct; 86(4):777-82.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.229
  45. National Prostate Cancer Screening Rates After the 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Discouraging Prostate-Specific Antigen-Based Screening. J Clin Oncol. 2015 Aug 01; 33(22):2416-23.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.228
  46. Gleason 6 Prostate Cancer: Translating Biology into Population Health. J Urol. 2015 Sep; 194(3):626-34.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.225
  47. Population-based analysis of salvage radical prostatectomy with examination of factors associated with adverse perioperative outcomes. Urol Oncol. 2015 Apr; 33(4):163.e1-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.223
  48. How active should active surveillance be? BJU Int. 2015 Feb; 115(2):176-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.222
  49. Pathologic outcomes for low-risk prostate cancer after delayed radical prostatectomy in the United States. Urol Oncol. 2015 Apr; 33(4):164.e11-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.222
  50. National trends in the management of low and intermediate risk prostate cancer in the United States. J Urol. 2015 Jan; 193(1):95-102.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.215
  51. Commentary on "Is repeat prostate biopsy associated with a greater risk of hospitalization? Data from SEER-Medicare." Loeb S, Carter HB, Berndt SI, Ricker W, Schaeffer EM, Department of Urology, New York University, New York, NY. J Urol 2013; 189(3):867-70. [Epub 2012 Oct 9]. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.10.005. Urol Oncol. 2014 Aug; 32(6):935-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.215
  52. Commentary on "Intermittent versus continuous androgen deprivation in prostate cancer." Hussain M, Tangen CM, Berry DL, Higano CS, Crawford ED, Liu G, Wilding G, Prescott S, Kanaga Sundaram S, Small EJ, Dawson NA, Donnelly BJ, Venner PM, Vaishampayan UN, Schellhammer PF, Quinn DI, Raghavan D, Ely B, Moinpour CM, Vogelzang NJ, Thompson IM Jr, University of Michigan, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Ann Arbor, MI. N Engl J Med 2013; 368(14):1314-25. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1212299. Urol Oncol. 2014 Aug; 32(6):936-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.215
  53. Commentary on "African American men with very low-risk prostate cancer exhibit adverse oncologic outcomes after radical prostatectomy: should active surveillance still be an option for them?" Sundi D, Ross AE, Humphreys EB, Han M, Partin AW, Carter HB, Schaeffer EM, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31(24):2991-7. [Epub 2013 Jun 17]. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2012.47.0302. Urol Oncol. 2014 Aug; 32(6):936.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.215
  54. Population-based analysis of treatment modalities and survival for clinically localized small-cell carcinoma of the prostate. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2014 Sep; 17(3):286-91.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.214
  55. Laser ablation as focal therapy for prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol. 2014 May; 24(3):236-40.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.211
  56. Commentary on: "Long-term functional outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer." Resnick MJ, Koyama T, Fan KH, Albertsen PC, Goodman M, Hamilton AS, Hoffman RM, Potosky AL, Stanford JL, Stroup AM, Van Horn RL, Penson DF. Department of Urologic Surgery and the Center for Surgical Quality and Outcomes Research, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.: N Engl J Med 2013;368(5):436-45. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1209978. Urol Oncol. 2014 May; 32(4):513-4.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.211
  57. Elastographic search for the (high-grade) tree in the (prostatic) forest. BJU Int. 2014 Apr; 113(4):514-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.210
  58. Editorial comment. J Urol. 2014 Jul; 192(1):81.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.210
  59. Ongoing Gleason grade migration in localized prostate cancer and implications for use of active surveillance. Eur Urol. 2014 Oct; 66(4):611-2.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.208
  60. National trends in prostate cancer screening among older American men with limited 9-year life expectancies: evidence of an increased need for shared decision making. Cancer. 2014 May 15; 120(10):1491-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.208
  61. The role of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection in the management of high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2014 May; 65(5):918-27.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.197
  62. MR imaging-guided focal laser ablation for prostate cancer: phase I trial. Radiology. 2013 Jun; 267(3):932-40.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.194
  63. A multi-institutional evaluation of active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2013 Jan; 189(1 Suppl):S19-25; discussion S25.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.192
  64. Re: Active surveillance failure for prostate cancer: does the delay in treatment increase the risk of urinary incontinence? Can J Urol. 2012 Jun; 19(3):6292.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.185
  65. 2008 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations and prostate cancer screening rates. JAMA. 2012 Apr 25; 307(16):1692-4.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.183
  66. Hazard of prostate cancer specific mortality after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2012 Jan; 187(1):124-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.178
  67. Cause-specific mortality following radical prostatectomy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2012 Mar; 15(1):106-10.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.178
  68. Focal therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Arch Esp Urol. 2011 Oct; 64(8):815-22.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.176
  69. Population-based patterns and predictors of prostate-specific antigen screening among older men in the United States. J Clin Oncol. 2011 May 01; 29(13):1736-43.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.170
  70. Editorial comment. J Urol. 2011 Apr; 185(4):1254-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.169
  71. Predicting 15-year prostate cancer specific mortality after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2011 Mar; 185(3):869-75.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.168
  72. Focal therapy for prostate cancer: possibilities and limitations. Eur Urol. 2010 Jul; 58(1):57-64.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.159
  73. Regarding: 'High-intensity-focused ultrasound in the treatment of primary prostate cancer: the first UK series'. Br J Cancer. 2009 Dec 15; 101(12):2057-8; author reply 2059.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.156
  74. Active surveillance for low-risk localized prostate cancer. Oncology (Williston Park). 2009 Oct; 23(11):974-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.153
  75. Re: Effectiveness of antibiotics given to asymptomatic men for an increased prostate specific antigen. S. Baltaci, E. Suer, A. H. Haliloglu, M. I. Gokce, A. H. Elhan and Y. Beduk. J Urol 2009; 181: 128-132. J Urol. 2009 Jul; 182(1):396-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.150
  76. Length of positive surgical margin after radical prostatectomy as a predictor of biochemical recurrence. J Urol. 2009 Jul; 182(1):139-44.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.150
  77. Patient selection for focal therapy of localized prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol. 2009 May; 19(3):268-73.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.149
  78. A multi-institutional evaluation of active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2009 Apr; 181(4):1635-41; discussion 1641.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.147
  79. Editorial comment on: Pharmacological approaches to reducing the risk of prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2009 May; 55(5):1073-4.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.147
  80. Comparison of models to predict clinical failure after radical prostatectomy. Cancer. 2009 Jan 15; 115(2):303-10.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.146
  81. Focal treatment of prostate cancer with vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy. ScientificWorldJournal. 2008 Oct 03; 8:963-73.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.143
  82. Editorial comment on: Analysis of T1c prostate cancers treated at very low prostate-specific antigen levels. Eur Urol. 2009 Mar; 55(3):616.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.141
  83. Relationship of prostate-specific antigen velocity to histologic findings in a prostate cancer screening program. Urology. 2008 Jun; 71(6):1016-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.138
  84. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: ten years later, time for evidence-based foundation. Eur Urol. 2008 Jul; 54(1):4-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.138
  85. Focal therapy for localized prostate cancer: a critical appraisal of rationale and modalities. J Urol. 2007 Dec; 178(6):2260-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.134
  86. Editorial comment on: Methods of calculating prostate-specific antigen velocity. Eur Urol. 2007 Oct; 52(4):1050-1.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.134
  87. Radical prostatectomy shortly after prostate biopsy does not affect operative difficulty or efficacy. Urology. 2007 Jun; 69(6):1128-33.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.131
  88. Prediagnosis prostate specific antigen velocity is associated with risk of prostate cancer progression following brachytherapy and external beam radiation therapy. J Urol. 2006 Oct; 176(4 Pt 1):1399-403.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.125
  89. Enhancement of intermittent androgen ablation by "off-cycle" maintenance with finasteride in LNCaP prostate cancer xenograft model. Prostate. 2006 Apr 01; 66(5):495-502.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.120
  90. Predictors of subsequent prostate cancer in men with a prostate specific antigen of 2.6 to 4.0 ng/ml and an initially negative biopsy. J Urol. 2005 Aug; 174(2):500-4.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.115
  91. Contemporary survival results and the role of radiation therapy in patients with node negative seminal vesicle invasion following radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2005 Apr; 173(4):1150-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.112
  92. Stockholm3 in a Multiethnic Cohort for Prostate Cancer Detection (SEPTA): A Prospective Multicentered Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2024 Nov 10; 42(32):3806-3816.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.107
  93. Hormonal Therapy and Radiation Therapy in Prostate Cancer: 5-Year Outcomes From a Trial Evaluating Combined Androgen Blockade With 5-Alpha Reductase Inhibitors as an Alternative to Gonadotropin Releasing Hormone Agonists. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2024 Aug; 22(4):102103.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.105
  94. PRESTO: A Phase III, Open-Label Study of Intensification of Androgen Blockade in Patients With High-Risk Biochemically Relapsed Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer (AFT-19). J Clin Oncol. 2024 Apr 01; 42(10):1114-1123.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.103
  95. Free PSA and Clinically Significant and Fatal Prostate Cancer in the PLCO Screening Trial. J Urol. 2023 10; 210(4):630-638.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.099
  96. Early Detection of Prostate Cancer: AUA/SUO Guideline Part II: Considerations for a Prostate Biopsy. J Urol. 2023 07; 210(1):54-63.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.098
  97. Early Detection of Prostate Cancer: AUA/SUO Guideline Part I: Prostate Cancer Screening. J Urol. 2023 07; 210(1):46-53.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.098
  98. Assessing the accuracy of multiparametric MRI to predict clinically significant prostate cancer in biopsy naïve men across racial/ethnic groups. BMC Urol. 2022 Jul 18; 22(1):107.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.093
  99. Systematic review of the impact of a plant-based diet on prostate cancer incidence and outcomes. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2022 09; 25(3):444-452.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.093
  100. Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline. Part III: Principles of Radiation and Future Directions. J Urol. 2022 07; 208(1):26-33.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.092
  101. Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, Part I: Introduction, Risk Assessment, Staging, and Risk-Based Management. J Urol. 2022 07; 208(1):10-18.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.092
  102. Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, Part II: Principles of Active Surveillance, Principles of Surgery, and Follow-Up. J Urol. 2022 07; 208(1):19-25.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.092
  103. Deconstructing, Addressing, and Eliminating Racial and Ethnic Inequities in Prostate Cancer Care. Eur Urol. 2022 10; 82(4):341-351.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.091
  104. Hematuria following Post-Prostatectomy Radiotherapy: Incidence Increases with Long-Term Followup. J Urol. 2022 06; 207(6):1236-1245.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.090
  105. Validation of Prostate Tissue Composition by Using Hybrid Multidimensional MRI: Correlation with Histologic Findings. Radiology. 2022 02; 302(2):368-377.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.089
  106. Performance of Three Inherited Risk Measures for Predicting Prostate Cancer Incidence and Mortality: A Population-based Prospective Analysis. Eur Urol. 2021 03; 79(3):419-426.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.083
  107. Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Transurethral Ultrasound Ablation of Prostate Cancer. J Urol. 2021 Mar; 205(3):769-779.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.082
  108. T2*-weighted MRI as a non-contrast-enhanced method for assessment of focal laser ablation zone extent in prostate cancer thermotherapy. Eur Radiol. 2021 Jan; 31(1):325-332.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.081
  109. Implementation of Germline Testing for Prostate Cancer: Philadelphia Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2019. J Clin Oncol. 2020 08 20; 38(24):2798-2811.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.080
  110. Update of the Standard Operating Procedure on the Use of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Diagnosis, Staging and Management of Prostate Cancer. J Urol. 2020 Apr; 203(4):706-712.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.077
  111. SPARED Collaboration: Patient Selection for Partial Gland Ablation in Men with Localized Prostate Cancer. J Urol. 2019 11; 202(5):952-958.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.077
  112. Reply by Authors. J Urol. 2019 11; 202(5):958.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.077
  113. Development of Treatments for Localized Prostate Cancer in Patients Eligible for Active Surveillance: U.S. Food and Drug Administration Oncology Center of Excellence Public Workshop. J Urol. 2020 01; 203(1):115-119.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.076
  114. Impact of preoperative prostate magnetic resonance imaging on the surgical management of high-risk prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2020 03; 23(1):172-178.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.076
  115. The State of the Science on Prostate Cancer Biomarkers: The San Francisco Consensus Statement. Eur Urol. 2019 Sep; 76(3):268-272.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.075
  116. Patient-reported Outcomes and Late Toxicity After Postprostatectomy Intensity-modulated Radiation Therapy. Eur Urol. 2019 11; 76(5):686-692.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.075
  117. Metastatic prostate cancer at diagnosis and through progression in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial. Cancer. 2019 09 01; 125(17):2965-2974.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.075
  118. Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer by Use of MRI-Derived Quantitative Risk Maps: A Feasibility Study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019 08; 213(2):W66-W75.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.075
  119. Focal laser ablation as clinical treatment of prostate cancer: report from a Delphi consensus project. World J Urol. 2019 Oct; 37(10):2147-2153.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.073
  120. Comparison of T2-Weighted Imaging, DWI, and Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI for Calculation of Prostate Cancer Index Lesion Volume: Correlation With Whole-Mount Pathology. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019 02; 212(2):351-356.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.073
  121. Evaluation of tumor coverage after MR-guided prostate focal laser ablation therapy. Med Phys. 2019 Feb; 46(2):800-810.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.073
  122. Evaluation of Focal Laser Ablation of Prostate Cancer Using High Spectral and Spatial Resolution Imaging: A Pilot Study. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2019 05; 49(5):1374-1380.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.072
  123. Feasibility of Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging Using Low-Dose Gadolinium: Comparative Performance With Standard Dose in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis. Invest Radiol. 2018 10; 53(10):609-615.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.072
  124. MRI Findings After MRI-Guided Focal Laser Ablation of Prostate Cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018 09; 211(3):595-604.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.070
  125. Ablation energies for focal treatment of prostate cancer. World J Urol. 2019 Mar; 37(3):409-418.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.070
  126. MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018 May 10; 378(19):1767-1777.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.069
  127. Contemporary Incidence and Outcomes of Prostate Cancer Lymph Node Metastases. J Urol. 2018 06; 199(6):1510-1517.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.068
  128. Role of Genetic Testing for Inherited Prostate Cancer Risk: Philadelphia Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2017. J Clin Oncol. 2018 02 01; 36(4):414-424.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.068
  129. Nodal Metastases at Radical Prostatectomy: More Aggressive Disease Warrants Consideration of Multimodal Treatment. Eur Urol. 2018 06; 73(6):897-898.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.068
  130. Minimal difference in survival between radical prostatectomy and observation in men with modest life expectancy. Evid Based Med. 2017 12; 22(6):222.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.067
  131. Nerve Bundle Hydrodissection and Sexual Function after Robot Prostatectomy. JSLS. 2017 Oct-Dec; 21(4).
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.067
  132. In localised prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy was associated with more sexual dysfunction and urinary incontinence than radiation or active surveillance. Evid Based Med. 2017 10; 22(5):192.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.066
  133. African-American Prostate Cancer Disparities. Curr Urol Rep. 2017 Aug 14; 18(10):81.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.066
  134. Low-risk Prostate Cancer: Identification, Management, and Outcomes. Eur Urol. 2017 08; 72(2):238-249.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.064
  135. Variability in Outcomes for Patients with Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer (Gleason Score 7, International Society of Urological Pathology Gleason Group 2-3) and Implications for Risk Stratification: A Systematic Review. Eur Urol Focus. 2017 10; 3(4-5):487-497.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.064
  136. Commentary regarding a recent collaborative consensus statement addressing prostate MRI and MRI-targeted biopsy in patients with a prior negative prostate biopsy. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2017 Feb; 42(2):346-349.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.064
  137. Prognostic Significance of Percentage and Architectural Types of Contemporary Gleason Pattern 4 Prostate Cancer in Radical Prostatectomy. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016 10; 40(10):1400-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.062
  138. Editorial Comment. J Urol. 2016 12; 196(6):1668-1669.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.062
  139. New and Established Technology in Focal Ablation of the Prostate: A Systematic Review. Eur Urol. 2017 01; 71(1):17-34.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.062
  140. Increasing incidence of metastatic prostate cancer in the United States (2004-2013). Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2016 12; 19(4):395-397.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.061
  141. Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted Biopsy in Patients with a Prior Negative Biopsy: A Consensus Statement by AUA and SAR. J Urol. 2016 12; 196(6):1613-1618.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.061
  142. Patient-Initiated Prostate Cancer Screening Among Older U.S. Men. Ann Intern Med. 2016 05 17; 164(10):702-3.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.061
  143. Standardization of definitions in focal therapy of prostate cancer: report from a Delphi consensus project. World J Urol. 2016 Oct; 34(10):1373-82.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.060
  144. Bladder dose-volume parameters are associated with urinary incontinence after postoperative intensity modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2016 Sep-Oct; 6(5):e179-e185.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.059
  145. The challenging landscape of medical device approval in localized prostate cancer. Nat Rev Urol. 2016 Feb; 13(2):91-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.059
  146. Giant Multilocular Cystadenoma of the Prostate. Radiographics. 2015 Jul-Aug; 35(4):1051-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.057
  147. The impact of days off between cases on perioperative outcomes for robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. World J Urol. 2016 Feb; 34(2):269-74.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.057
  148. Genomic Predictors of Outcome in Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol. 2015 Dec; 68(6):1033-44.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.056
  149. Robotic-assisted pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer: frequency of nodal metastases and oncological outcomes. World J Urol. 2015 Nov; 33(11):1689-94.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.056
  150. Focal therapy: patients, interventions, and outcomes--a report from a consensus meeting. Eur Urol. 2015 Apr; 67(4):771-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.054
  151. Metastatic small cell carcinoma of the prostate: Population-based analysis of patient characteristics and treatment paradigms. Urol Oncol. 2015 Feb; 33(2):70.e1-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.053
  152. Population-based assessment of prostate-specific antigen testing for prostate cancer in the elderly. Urol Oncol. 2015 Feb; 33(2):69.e29-34.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.053
  153. Effect of depression on diagnosis, treatment, and mortality of men with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2014 Aug 10; 32(23):2471-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.053
  154. Health technology assessment in evolution - focal therapy in localised prostate cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2014 Nov; 14(11):1359-67.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.053
  155. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging features of the normal central zone of the prostate. Acad Radiol. 2014 May; 21(5):569-77.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.053
  156. Apparent diffusion coefficient for prostate cancer imaging: impact of B values. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014 Mar; 202(3):W247-53.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.052
  157. Validation of quantitative analysis of multiparametric prostate MR images for prostate cancer detection and aggressiveness assessment: a cross-imager study. Radiology. 2014 May; 271(2):461-71.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.052
  158. Focal therapy in prostate cancer: international multidisciplinary consensus on trial design. Eur Urol. 2014 Jun; 65(6):1078-83.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.052
  159. Prostate volumes derived from MRI and volume-adjusted serum prostate-specific antigen: correlation with Gleason score of prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013 Nov; 201(5):1041-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.051
  160. Development and multi-institutional validation of an upgrading risk tool for Gleason 6 prostate cancer. Cancer. 2013 Nov 15; 119(22):3992-4002.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.050
  161. Do margins matter? The influence of positive surgical margins on prostate cancer-specific mortality. Eur Urol. 2014 Apr; 65(4):675-80.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.050
  162. Standards of reporting for MRI-targeted biopsy studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an International Working Group. Eur Urol. 2013 Oct; 64(4):544-52.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.049
  163. Seminal vesicle invasion in prostate cancer: evaluation by using multiparametric endorectal MR imaging. Radiology. 2013 Jun; 267(3):797-806.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.049
  164. Quantitative analysis of multiparametric prostate MR images: differentiation between prostate cancer and normal tissue and correlation with Gleason score--a computer-aided diagnosis development study. Radiology. 2013 Jun; 267(3):787-96.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.048
  165. Short (= 1 mm) positive surgical margin and risk of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2013 Apr; 111(4):559-63.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.046
  166. Evaluation of the prostate bed for local recurrence after radical prostatectomy using endorectal magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013 Feb 01; 85(2):378-84.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.046
  167. Imaging-guided prostate biopsy: conventional and emerging techniques. Radiographics. 2012 May-Jun; 32(3):819-37.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.046
  168. Role of transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) in focal therapy of prostate cancer: report from a Consensus Panel. BJU Int. 2012 Oct; 110(7):942-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.046
  169. Local staging of prostate cancer with MRI. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2012 Jul-Aug; 18(4):365-73.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.045
  170. Diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of prostate cancer: correlation of quantitative MR parameters with Gleason score and tumor angiogenesis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011 Dec; 197(6):1382-90.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.045
  171. High-resolution MRI of excised human prostate specimens acquired with 9.4T in detection and identification of cancers: validation of a technique. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2011 Oct; 34(4):956-61.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.044
  172. Gleason 6 prostate cancer in one or two biopsy cores can harbor more aggressive disease. J Endourol. 2011 Apr; 25(4):699-703.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.042
  173. Suppressive roles of calreticulin in prostate cancer growth and metastasis. Am J Pathol. 2009 Aug; 175(2):882-90.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.038
  174. Robotic radical prostatectomy in overweight and obese patients: oncological and validated-functional outcomes. Urology. 2009 Feb; 73(2):316-22.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.036
  175. A single microfocus (5% or less) of Gleason 6 prostate cancer at biopsy--can we predict adverse pathological outcomes? J Urol. 2008 Dec; 180(6):2436-40.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.036
  176. Pathological upgrading and up staging with immediate repeat biopsy in patients eligible for active surveillance. J Urol. 2008 Nov; 180(5):1964-7; discussion 1967-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.036
  177. The role of SPINK1 in ETS rearrangement-negative prostate cancers. Cancer Cell. 2008 Jun; 13(6):519-28.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.035
  178. Secondary therapy, metastatic progression, and cancer-specific mortality in men with clinically high-risk prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2008 May; 53(5):950-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.033
  179. Expression and function of the human androgen-responsive gene ADI1 in prostate cancer. Neoplasia. 2007 Aug; 9(8):643-51.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.033
  180. Association of cysteine-rich secretory protein 3 and beta-microseminoprotein with outcome after radical prostatectomy. Clin Cancer Res. 2007 Jul 15; 13(14):4130-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.033
  181. Radical prostatectomy for clinically localized, high risk prostate cancer: critical analysis of risk assessment methods. J Urol. 2007 Aug; 178(2):493-9; discussion 499.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.033
  182. Survival results in patients with screen-detected prostate cancer versus physician-referred patients treated with radical prostatectomy: early results. Urol Oncol. 2006 Nov-Dec; 24(6):465-71.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.031
  183. The natural history of noncastrate metastatic prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2007 Apr; 51(4):940-7; discussion 947-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.031
  184. Use of 2.6 ng/ml prostate specific antigen prompt for biopsy in men older than 60 years. J Urol. 2005 Dec; 174(6):2154-7, discussion 2157.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.029
  185. Preoperative PSA and progression-free survival after radical prostatectomy for Stage T1c disease. Urology. 2005 Jul; 66(1):156-60.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.029
  186. Timing is everything: preclinical evidence supporting simultaneous rather than sequential chemohormonal therapy for prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2005 Jul 01; 11(13):4905-11.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.029
  187. Potency, continence and complications in 3,477 consecutive radical retropubic prostatectomies. J Urol. 2004 Dec; 172(6 Pt 1):2227-31.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.027
  188. Multi-institutional Clinical Tool for Predicting High-risk Lesions on 3Tesla Multiparametric Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Eur Urol Oncol. 2019 05; 2(3):257-264.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.018
  189. Corneal abrasion in hysterectomy and prostatectomy: role of laparoscopic and robotic assistance. Anesthesiology. 2015 May; 122(5):994-1001.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.014
  190. Revisiting the central gland anatomy via MRI: does the central gland extend below the level of verumontanum? J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014 Jan; 39(1):167-71.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.013
Connection Strength

The connection strength for concepts is the sum of the scores for each matching publication.

Publication scores are based on many factors, including how long ago they were written and whether the person is a first or senior author.