View Item 

Show simple item record

Comparison of prostate cancer diagnosis in patients receiving unrelated urological and non‐urological cancer care
dc.contributor.authorCorcoran, Anthony T.en_US
dc.contributor.authorSmaldone, Marc C.en_US
dc.contributor.authorEgleston, Brian L.en_US
dc.contributor.authorSimhan, Jayen_US
dc.contributor.authorGinzburg, Sergeen_US
dc.contributor.authorMorgan, Todd M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorWalton, Johnen_US
dc.contributor.authorChen, David Y.T.en_US
dc.contributor.authorViterbo, Rosaliaen_US
dc.contributor.authorGreenberg, Richard E.en_US
dc.contributor.authorUzzo, Robert G.en_US
dc.contributor.authorKutikov, Alexanderen_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-07-08T17:45:39Z
dc.date.available2014-09-02T14:12:53Zen_US
dc.date.issued2013-07en_US
dc.identifier.citationCorcoran, Anthony T.; Smaldone, Marc C.; Egleston, Brian L.; Simhan, Jay; Ginzburg, Serge; Morgan, Todd M.; Walton, John; Chen, David Y.T.; Viterbo, Rosalia; Greenberg, Richard E.; Uzzo, Robert G.; Kutikov, Alexander (2013). "Comparison of prostate cancer diagnosis in patients receiving unrelated urological and non‐urological cancer care." BJU International (2): 161-168 . <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/98801>en_US
dc.identifier.issn1464-4096en_US
dc.identifier.issn1464-410Xen_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/98801
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.en_US
dc.subject.otherProstate Carcinomaen_US
dc.subject.otherScreeningen_US
dc.subject.otherPSAen_US
dc.subject.otherUrological Careen_US
dc.subject.otherOverdiagnosisen_US
dc.titleComparison of prostate cancer diagnosis in patients receiving unrelated urological and non‐urological cancer careen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelInternal Medicine and Specialtiesen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.identifier.pmid23795784en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/98801/1/bju12220.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/bju.12220en_US
dc.identifier.sourceBJU Internationalen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWelch HG, Black WC. Overdiagnosis in cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010; 102: 605 – 613en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAndriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL 3rd et al. Prostate cancer screening in the randomized Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial: mortality results after 13 years of follow‐up. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012; 104: 125 – 132en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSchroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ et al. Prostate‐cancer mortality at 11 years of follow‐up. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 981 – 990en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceUnited States Preventative Services Task Force. Screening for Prostate Cancer U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. 2012. Available at: http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf12/prostate/draftrecprostate.htm. Accessed October 2011en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGreene KL, Albertsen PC, Babaian RJ et al. Prostate specific antigen best practice statement: 2009 update. J Urol 2009; 182: 2232 – 2241en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMohler J, Bahnson RR, Boston B et al. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: prostate cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2010; 8: 162 – 200en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSmith RA, Cokkinides V, Brawley OW. Cancer screening in the United States, 2009: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin 2009; 59: 27 – 41en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePollack CE, Noronha G, Green GE, Bhavsar NA, Carter HB. Primary care providers' response to the US Preventive Services Task Force draft recommendations on screening for prostate cancer. Arch Intern Med 2012; 172: 668 – 670en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceZhu X, Albertsen PC, Andriole GL, Roobol MJ, Schroder FH, Vickers AJ. Risk‐based prostate cancer screening. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 652 – 661en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNational Cancer Institute. Software: surveillance Research Program NCISSswscgsv. 2011. Data: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program (Available at: http://www.seer.cancer.gov. Accessed April 2011) SEER*Stat Database: Incidence – SEER 13 Regs Research Data, Nov 2010 Sub (1992–2008) <Katrina/Rita Population Adjustment> – Linked To County Attributes – Total U.S., 1969–2009 Counties, National Cancer Institute, DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program, Cancer Statistics Branch. released April 2011, based on the November 2010 submissionen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNational Cancer Institute. SEER registry groupings for analyses. 2012. Available at: http://www.seer.cancer.gov/registries/terms.html. Accessed October 2011en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMorton LM, Curtis RE, Linet MS et al. Second malignancy risks after non‐Hodgkin's lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia: differences by lymphoma subtype. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 4935 – 4944en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLunceford JK, Davidian M. Stratification and weighting via the propensity score in estimation of causal treatment effects: a comparative study. Stat Med 2004; 23: 2937 – 2960en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGray R. A class of K‐sample tests for comparing the cumulative incidence of a competing risk. Ann. Stat. 1988; 16: 1141 – 1154en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFine J, Gray R. A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. J Am Stat Assoc 1999; 94: 496 – 509en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWong YN, Mitra N, Hudes G et al. Survival associated with treatment vs observation of localized prostate cancer in elderly men. JAMA 2006; 296: 2683 – 2693en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBill‐Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M et al. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2011; 364: 1708 – 1717en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVan Hemelrijck M, Drevin L, Holmberg L, Garmo H, Adolfsson J, Stattin P. Primary cancers before and after prostate cancer diagnosis. Cancer 2012; 118: 6207 – 6216en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFowler FJ Jr, Bin L, Collins MM et al. Prostate cancer screening and beliefs about treatment efficacy: a national survey of primary care physicians and urologists. Am J Med 1998; 104: 526 – 532en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBadger WJ, Moran ME, Abraham C, Yarlagadda B, Perrotti M. Missed diagnoses by urologists resulting in malpractice payment. J Urol 2007; 178: 2537 – 2539en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCarlsson S, Vickers AJ, Roobol M et al. Prostate Cancer Screening: facts, Statistics, and Interpretation in Response to the US Preventive Services Task Force Review. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: 2581 – 2584en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKutikov A, Cooperberg MR, Paciorek AT, Uzzo RG, Carroll PR, Boorjian SA. Evaluating prostate cancer mortality and competing risks of death in patients with localized prostate cancer using a comprehensive nomogram. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2012; 15: 374 – 379en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWalz J, Gallina A, Saad F et al. A nomogram predicting 10‐year life expectancy in candidates for radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 3576 – 3581en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDeras IL, Aubin SM, Blase A et al. PCA3: a molecular urine assay for predicting prostate biopsy outcome. J Urol 2008; 179: 1587 – 1592en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHaese A, de la Taille A, van Poppel H et al. Clinical utility of the PCA3 urine assay in European men scheduled for repeat biopsy. Eur Urol 2008; 54: 1081 – 1088en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWang R, Chinnaiyan AM, Dunn RL, Wojno KJ, Wei JT. Rational approach to implementation of prostate cancer antigen 3 into clinical care. Cancer 2009; 115: 3879 – 3886en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceScosyrev E, Wu G, Mohile S, Messing EM. Prostate‐specific antigen screening for prostate cancer and the risk of overt metastatic disease at presentation: analysis of trends over time. Cancer 2012; 118: 5768 – 5776en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
bju12220.pdf
Size:
212.4KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.