The University of Chicago Header Logo

Connection

Scott E. Eggener to Prostate-Specific Antigen

This is a "connection" page, showing publications Scott E. Eggener has written about Prostate-Specific Antigen.
Connection Strength

11.908
  1. 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: 0.808
  2. 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: 0.769
  3. 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: 0.735
  4. 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: 0.633
  5. 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: 0.530
  6. Patient-Initiated Prostate Cancer Screening Among Older U.S. Men. Ann Intern Med. 2016 05 17; 164(10):702-3.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.476
  7. Prostate Cancer Screening. JAMA. 2015 Aug 25; 314(8):825-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.453
  8. 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: 0.446
  9. How active should active surveillance be? BJU Int. 2015 Feb; 115(2):176-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.436
  10. 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: 0.409
  11. 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: 0.407
  12. Empiric antibiotics for an elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level: a randomised, prospective, controlled multi-institutional trial. BJU Int. 2013 Nov; 112(7):925-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.392
  13. 2008 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations and prostate cancer screening rates. JAMA. 2012 Apr 25; 307(16):1692-4.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.359
  14. 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: 0.334
  15. 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: 0.293
  16. 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: 0.293
  17. 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: 0.277
  18. 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: 0.271
  19. 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: 0.263
  20. Editorial comment on: Methods of calculating prostate-specific antigen velocity. Eur Urol. 2007 Oct; 52(4):1050-1.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.262
  21. 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: 0.244
  22. 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: 0.225
  23. 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: 0.200
  24. 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: 0.195
  25. Low-Grade Prostate Cancer: Time to Stop Calling It Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2022 09 20; 40(27):3110-3114.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.179
  26. Radical Prostatectomy Without Biopsy: Audacious, Imprudent, or Innovative? Eur Urol. 2022 08; 82(2):161-162.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.179
  27. 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: 0.145
  28. Prostate cancer detection following diagnosis of atypical small acinar proliferation. Can J Urol. 2017 Apr; 24(2):8714-8720.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.127
  29. 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: 0.126
  30. 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: 0.122
  31. 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: 0.121
  32. 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: 0.115
  33. Focal therapy: patients, interventions, and outcomes--a report from a consensus meeting. Eur Urol. 2015 Apr; 67(4):771-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.106
  34. 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: 0.105
  35. 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: 0.100
  36. 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: 0.099
  37. Comparison of models to predict clinical failure after radical prostatectomy. Cancer. 2009 Jan 15; 115(2):303-10.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.072
  38. 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: 0.058
  39. 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: 0.055
  40. 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: 0.051
  41. 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: 0.048
  42. 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: 0.048
  43. 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: 0.046
  44. 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: 0.038
  45. 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: 0.036
  46. No Effect of Music on Anxiety and Pain During Transrectal Prostate Biopsies: A Randomized Trial. Urology. 2018 Jul; 117:31-35.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.034
  47. Contemporary Incidence and Outcomes of Prostate Cancer Lymph Node Metastases. J Urol. 2018 06; 199(6):1510-1517.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.033
  48. Low-risk Prostate Cancer: Identification, Management, and Outcomes. Eur Urol. 2017 08; 72(2):238-249.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.032
  49. 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: 0.029
  50. Focal therapy in prostate cancer: international multidisciplinary consensus on trial design. Eur Urol. 2014 Jun; 65(6):1078-83.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.025
  51. 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: 0.023
  52. 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: 0.018
  53. 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: 0.016
  54. 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: 0.015
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.