Pub Date : 2024-11-16DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2024.10.021
Sebastiaan Remmers , Ivo I. de Vos , Frederique B. Denijs , Renée C.A. Leenen , Tycho M.T.W. Lock , Arjen Noordzij , Wim J. Kirkels , Chris H. Bangma , Monique J. Roobol , ERSPC Rotterdam Study Group
For men with prostate cancer (PCa) within the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC), the cause of death is determined by a Cause of Death Committee (CODC) that evaluates all medical records using a fixed algorithm. The aim of this study was to compare the classification of PCa-specific mortality (PCSM) between the CODC and Statistics Netherlands. We calculated the sensitivity (PCSM agreement divided by total PCSM deaths according to the CODC) and specificity (agreement for other-cause mortality [OCM] divided by total OCM deaths according to the CODC) using the last 21-yr follow-up data from ERSPC Rotterdam. For the core age group (age 55–69 yr at randomization; n = 1732), the sensitivity was 86% (95% CI 83-89) and specificity was 93% (95% CI 91-94), with no statistical difference between the youngest ages and the oldest ages. Extrapolation of our findings to 30 yr of follow-up would result in an expected risk reduction of PCSM of 30% using data from the CODC and 33% using official statistics in favor of screening. In conclusion, our results support the use of official statistics in determining the cause of death, without compromising the main outcome of ERSPC Rotterdam.
Patient summary
We compared the classification of prostate cancer death between a dedicated trial committee and official statistics in the Netherlands. We found that official statistics are an accurate representation in determining the cause of death.
{"title":"Assessing the Cause of Death for Men with Prostate Cancer Using Official Mortality Statistics or a Dedicated Cause of Death Committee: Results from 30-year ERSPC Rotterdam Data","authors":"Sebastiaan Remmers , Ivo I. de Vos , Frederique B. Denijs , Renée C.A. Leenen , Tycho M.T.W. Lock , Arjen Noordzij , Wim J. Kirkels , Chris H. Bangma , Monique J. Roobol , ERSPC Rotterdam Study Group","doi":"10.1016/j.euros.2024.10.021","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.euros.2024.10.021","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>For men with prostate cancer (PCa) within the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC), the cause of death is determined by a Cause of Death Committee (CODC) that evaluates all medical records using a fixed algorithm. The aim of this study was to compare the classification of PCa-specific mortality (PCSM) between the CODC and Statistics Netherlands. We calculated the sensitivity (PCSM agreement divided by total PCSM deaths according to the CODC) and specificity (agreement for other-cause mortality [OCM] divided by total OCM deaths according to the CODC) using the last 21-yr follow-up data from ERSPC Rotterdam. For the core age group (age 55–69 yr at randomization; <em>n</em> = 1732), the sensitivity was 86% (95% CI 83-89) and specificity was 93% (95% CI 91-94), with no statistical difference between the youngest ages and the oldest ages. Extrapolation of our findings to 30 yr of follow-up would result in an expected risk reduction of PCSM of 30% using data from the CODC and 33% using official statistics in favor of screening. In conclusion, our results support the use of official statistics in determining the cause of death, without compromising the main outcome of ERSPC Rotterdam.</div></div><div><h3>Patient summary</h3><div>We compared the classification of prostate cancer death between a dedicated trial committee and official statistics in the Netherlands. We found that official statistics are an accurate representation in determining the cause of death.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12254,"journal":{"name":"European Urology Open Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142656245","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-11-12DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2024.10.018
Ek Leone Oh , Wade Huish , Sara El-Gamil , Tim Benson , Thomas Ferguson
<div><h3>Background and objective</h3><div>It is widely accepted that the value of treatments for incurable metastatic cancer depends on their ability to improve overall survival (OS), quality of life (QoL), or both. Progression-free survival (PFS) is frequently used as a primary endpoint because of challenges in accurately assessing OS and QoL. The perceived value of extending PFS when there is uncertainty regarding the benefit to OS/QoL may vary between clinicians and patients. The aim of our study was to measure patient and clinician perspectives on what defines a clinically meaningful PFS benefit.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted an observational study using a self-administered questionnaire. Participants included patients with advanced prostate cancer (PC) and medical oncology clinicians treating patients with PC. The questionnaire presented a hypothetical scenario of metastatic castrate-resistant PC (mCRPC). Participants were asked about their willingness to undergo or prescribe treatment offering PFS benefits despite uncertain OS outcomes. Participants specified the minimum extension of PFS (ePFS<sub>min</sub>) beyond the estimated 18-mo duration outlined in the scenario while considering varying toxicity levels.</div></div><div><h3>Key findings and limitations</h3><div>Between April and May 2024, 54 patient responses and 27 clinician responses were received. Some 50/54 patient participants (92.6%) and 22/27 clinician participants (81.5%) expressed willingness to accept a prospective treatment associated with longer PFS but uncertain OS benefit. For treatment with no or mild toxicity, the median ePFS<sub>min</sub> for treatment acceptance was >12 mo for patient participants and 3–6 mo for clinician participants. For treatment with severe toxicity, 40.7% of patients and 51.9% of clinicians would not accept treatment; the ePFS<sub>min</sub> for treatment acceptance was 3–6 mo for patient participants and >12 mo for clinician participants.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions and clinical implications</h3><div>Most patients and clinicians are open to mCRPC treatment with evidence of PFS benefits despite OS uncertainty. Patients needed longer PFS extension to justify treatment but were more accepting of side effects and placed greater importance on a prostate-specific antigen or radiological response than clinicians. The relationship between ePFS<sub>min</sub> and treatment acceptance according to toxicity levels for patients was unclear, limited by the nature of the self-administered questionnaires.</div></div><div><h3>Patient summary</h3><div>We surveyed patients and doctors about their views on an imaginary treatment for advanced prostate cancer that could delay disease progression but with no certainty about whether it would extend life expectancy. Both patients and doctors were open to this treatment, but patients expected a longer delay in disease progression than doctors before being willing to accept this imaginary tr
{"title":"Assessment of Patient and Clinician Perspectives on Clinically Meaningful Extension of Progression-free Survival in Prostate Cancer","authors":"Ek Leone Oh , Wade Huish , Sara El-Gamil , Tim Benson , Thomas Ferguson","doi":"10.1016/j.euros.2024.10.018","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.euros.2024.10.018","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and objective</h3><div>It is widely accepted that the value of treatments for incurable metastatic cancer depends on their ability to improve overall survival (OS), quality of life (QoL), or both. Progression-free survival (PFS) is frequently used as a primary endpoint because of challenges in accurately assessing OS and QoL. The perceived value of extending PFS when there is uncertainty regarding the benefit to OS/QoL may vary between clinicians and patients. The aim of our study was to measure patient and clinician perspectives on what defines a clinically meaningful PFS benefit.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted an observational study using a self-administered questionnaire. Participants included patients with advanced prostate cancer (PC) and medical oncology clinicians treating patients with PC. The questionnaire presented a hypothetical scenario of metastatic castrate-resistant PC (mCRPC). Participants were asked about their willingness to undergo or prescribe treatment offering PFS benefits despite uncertain OS outcomes. Participants specified the minimum extension of PFS (ePFS<sub>min</sub>) beyond the estimated 18-mo duration outlined in the scenario while considering varying toxicity levels.</div></div><div><h3>Key findings and limitations</h3><div>Between April and May 2024, 54 patient responses and 27 clinician responses were received. Some 50/54 patient participants (92.6%) and 22/27 clinician participants (81.5%) expressed willingness to accept a prospective treatment associated with longer PFS but uncertain OS benefit. For treatment with no or mild toxicity, the median ePFS<sub>min</sub> for treatment acceptance was >12 mo for patient participants and 3–6 mo for clinician participants. For treatment with severe toxicity, 40.7% of patients and 51.9% of clinicians would not accept treatment; the ePFS<sub>min</sub> for treatment acceptance was 3–6 mo for patient participants and >12 mo for clinician participants.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions and clinical implications</h3><div>Most patients and clinicians are open to mCRPC treatment with evidence of PFS benefits despite OS uncertainty. Patients needed longer PFS extension to justify treatment but were more accepting of side effects and placed greater importance on a prostate-specific antigen or radiological response than clinicians. The relationship between ePFS<sub>min</sub> and treatment acceptance according to toxicity levels for patients was unclear, limited by the nature of the self-administered questionnaires.</div></div><div><h3>Patient summary</h3><div>We surveyed patients and doctors about their views on an imaginary treatment for advanced prostate cancer that could delay disease progression but with no certainty about whether it would extend life expectancy. Both patients and doctors were open to this treatment, but patients expected a longer delay in disease progression than doctors before being willing to accept this imaginary tr","PeriodicalId":12254,"journal":{"name":"European Urology Open Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142656742","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-11-12DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2024.10.020
Vasileios Sakalis , Yagnaseni Bhattacharya , Katharina Beyer , Charlotte Murray , Emma Jane Smith , Peter-Paul M. Willemse , Giorgio Gandaglia , Romain Boissier , Angelika Borkowetz , Saeed Dabestani , Renee C.A. Leenen , Antoni Vilaseca , Gianluca Maresca , Jeremy Teoh , Juan Gómez Rivas , Pawel Rajwa , Michael Lardas , Nikolas Grivas , Thomas Van den Broeck , Benjamin Pradere , Muhammad Imran Omar
<div><h3>Background and objective</h3><div> <!-->Clinical practice guidelines for prostate cancer (PCa) are a valuable resource for everyday clinical practice. The clinical practice guidelines and recommendations produced by various societies should demonstrate a considerable level of consistency in terms of quality, regardless of the society that developed these given the common evidence base. However, to date, no study has assessed the quality of PCa clinical practice guidelines. As part of the Optimal Treatment for Patients with Solid Tumours in Europe Through Artificial intelligence (OPTIMA) project, we evaluated the quality of the most frequently used national and international clinical practice guidelines for PCa using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>The quality of the identified clinical practice guidelines was assessed independently by two assessors using the AGREE II tool. The AGREE II tool comprises 23 different items organised into six domains, rated on a 7-point scale (1: strongly disagree to 7: strongly agree). The total score of the appraisal was the mean value of the two assessments. The agreement between assessors’ scores was calculated using the interclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Four key recommendations were compared among the included clinical practice guidelines to assess consistency.</div></div><div><h3>Key findings and limitations</h3><div>Sixteen clinical practice guidelines were assessed using their latest available version (cut-off April 2024). The European Association of Urology, S3LL PCa, Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and Prostatacancer—Nationellt vårdprogram guidelines received the highest overall scores with a mean domain score of 82.4% (range: 75.5–88.3%). The de<!--> <!-->l’Association Française d’Urologie (AFU), American Urological Association, and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence received a mean domain score of 77.6% (range: 73.7–84.0%). Below average were the European Society for Medical Oncology, localised (L) and systemic (S) CPPC American Society of Clinical Oncology, and Nederlandse Vereniging voor Urologie (NVU) with a mean domain score of 58.4% (range: 43.5–76.3%). The reasons for scoring below average included the following: inadequate information about the methodology applied, limited scope of the guideline, and limited patient engagement. The highest inter-rater variability was observed in NVU (ICC: 0.58) and the lowest in AFU-L (ICC: 0.84). When examining the scores of each domain, “clarity of presentation” (domain 4) achieved the highest score with a mean of 86.9% ± 12.6%. The domain with the lowest score was applicability (domain 5), with a mean of 48.3% ± 24.8%. The ICC was calculated to be 0.72 (±0.08).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions and clinical implications</h3><div>This is the first study in which a comprehensive quality assessment of the major
{"title":"AGREE II Quality Assessment of National and International Clinical Practice Guidelines on Prostate Cancer Management by the OPTIMA Consortium","authors":"Vasileios Sakalis , Yagnaseni Bhattacharya , Katharina Beyer , Charlotte Murray , Emma Jane Smith , Peter-Paul M. Willemse , Giorgio Gandaglia , Romain Boissier , Angelika Borkowetz , Saeed Dabestani , Renee C.A. Leenen , Antoni Vilaseca , Gianluca Maresca , Jeremy Teoh , Juan Gómez Rivas , Pawel Rajwa , Michael Lardas , Nikolas Grivas , Thomas Van den Broeck , Benjamin Pradere , Muhammad Imran Omar","doi":"10.1016/j.euros.2024.10.020","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.euros.2024.10.020","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and objective</h3><div> <!-->Clinical practice guidelines for prostate cancer (PCa) are a valuable resource for everyday clinical practice. The clinical practice guidelines and recommendations produced by various societies should demonstrate a considerable level of consistency in terms of quality, regardless of the society that developed these given the common evidence base. However, to date, no study has assessed the quality of PCa clinical practice guidelines. As part of the Optimal Treatment for Patients with Solid Tumours in Europe Through Artificial intelligence (OPTIMA) project, we evaluated the quality of the most frequently used national and international clinical practice guidelines for PCa using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>The quality of the identified clinical practice guidelines was assessed independently by two assessors using the AGREE II tool. The AGREE II tool comprises 23 different items organised into six domains, rated on a 7-point scale (1: strongly disagree to 7: strongly agree). The total score of the appraisal was the mean value of the two assessments. The agreement between assessors’ scores was calculated using the interclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Four key recommendations were compared among the included clinical practice guidelines to assess consistency.</div></div><div><h3>Key findings and limitations</h3><div>Sixteen clinical practice guidelines were assessed using their latest available version (cut-off April 2024). The European Association of Urology, S3LL PCa, Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and Prostatacancer—Nationellt vårdprogram guidelines received the highest overall scores with a mean domain score of 82.4% (range: 75.5–88.3%). The de<!--> <!-->l’Association Française d’Urologie (AFU), American Urological Association, and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence received a mean domain score of 77.6% (range: 73.7–84.0%). Below average were the European Society for Medical Oncology, localised (L) and systemic (S) CPPC American Society of Clinical Oncology, and Nederlandse Vereniging voor Urologie (NVU) with a mean domain score of 58.4% (range: 43.5–76.3%). The reasons for scoring below average included the following: inadequate information about the methodology applied, limited scope of the guideline, and limited patient engagement. The highest inter-rater variability was observed in NVU (ICC: 0.58) and the lowest in AFU-L (ICC: 0.84). When examining the scores of each domain, “clarity of presentation” (domain 4) achieved the highest score with a mean of 86.9% ± 12.6%. The domain with the lowest score was applicability (domain 5), with a mean of 48.3% ± 24.8%. The ICC was calculated to be 0.72 (±0.08).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions and clinical implications</h3><div>This is the first study in which a comprehensive quality assessment of the major","PeriodicalId":12254,"journal":{"name":"European Urology Open Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142651319","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-11-07DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2024.10.017
Amnuay Kleebayoon , Viroj Wiwanitkit
{"title":"Re: Emilio Arbelaez, Iris Zünti, Sarah Tschudin-Sutter, et al. Catheter-associated Urinary Tract Infections—Online Questionnaire: Status Quo in Central European Urological Management of Catheter-associated Urinary Tract Infection. Eur Urol Open Sci 2024;69:63–70","authors":"Amnuay Kleebayoon , Viroj Wiwanitkit","doi":"10.1016/j.euros.2024.10.017","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.euros.2024.10.017","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":12254,"journal":{"name":"European Urology Open Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142656804","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-11-01DOI: 10.1016/S2666-1683(24)01136-4
Fernandes R., Mubarak M., Mcguinness L.
{"title":"P005 Ultrasound (US) with Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology (FNAC) as an adjunct in staging cN0 penile cancer patients: Outcomes of a regional centre in the UK","authors":"Fernandes R., Mubarak M., Mcguinness L.","doi":"10.1016/S2666-1683(24)01136-4","DOIUrl":"10.1016/S2666-1683(24)01136-4","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":12254,"journal":{"name":"European Urology Open Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142650718","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-11-01DOI: 10.1016/S2666-1683(24)01172-8
Zattoni F., Novara G., Burei M., Bertin D., Borsatti E., Baresic T., Farsad M., Trenti E., Bartolomei M., Panareo S., Urse L., Del Bianco P., Magni G., De Salvo G.L., Dal Moro F., Evangelista L.
{"title":"P044 A prospective randomized multicenter study on the impact of [18f]choline PET/CT versus conventional imaging for staging intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer","authors":"Zattoni F., Novara G., Burei M., Bertin D., Borsatti E., Baresic T., Farsad M., Trenti E., Bartolomei M., Panareo S., Urse L., Del Bianco P., Magni G., De Salvo G.L., Dal Moro F., Evangelista L.","doi":"10.1016/S2666-1683(24)01172-8","DOIUrl":"10.1016/S2666-1683(24)01172-8","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":12254,"journal":{"name":"European Urology Open Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142650730","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-11-01DOI: 10.1016/S2666-1683(24)01169-8
Geavlete B., Predoiu G., Petca R-C., Geavlete P., Multescu R., Mares C., Georgescu D., Popescu R-I.
{"title":"P041 MRI-fusion targeted single versus 3 cores index lesions’ biopsy in prostate cancer diagnostic – a bi-center, prospective clinical comparison “through the looking glass” of mismatch-related diagnostic accuracy and peri-procedural complications’ rate","authors":"Geavlete B., Predoiu G., Petca R-C., Geavlete P., Multescu R., Mares C., Georgescu D., Popescu R-I.","doi":"10.1016/S2666-1683(24)01169-8","DOIUrl":"10.1016/S2666-1683(24)01169-8","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":12254,"journal":{"name":"European Urology Open Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142650822","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-11-01DOI: 10.1016/S2666-1683(24)01183-2
Park Y., Kang B-H., Lee E., Park H.J.
{"title":"P055 Dosimetric benefits of CT-based online adaptive radiotherapy in stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer","authors":"Park Y., Kang B-H., Lee E., Park H.J.","doi":"10.1016/S2666-1683(24)01183-2","DOIUrl":"10.1016/S2666-1683(24)01183-2","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":12254,"journal":{"name":"European Urology Open Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142650825","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-11-01DOI: 10.1016/S2666-1683(24)01208-4
Mališić E., Petrović N., Petrović M., Kopcalić K., Milovanović J., Ilić B., Nikitović M., Stanojković T.
{"title":"P080 Association of RNASEL rs12757998 polymorphism with normal tissue toxicity and fatigue induced by radiotherapy in prostate cancer patients","authors":"Mališić E., Petrović N., Petrović M., Kopcalić K., Milovanović J., Ilić B., Nikitović M., Stanojković T.","doi":"10.1016/S2666-1683(24)01208-4","DOIUrl":"10.1016/S2666-1683(24)01208-4","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":12254,"journal":{"name":"European Urology Open Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142651316","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-11-01DOI: 10.1016/S2666-1683(24)01209-6
Droghetti M., Pirelli V., Bianchi L., Tamburini S., Farolfi A., Di Giorgio A., Castellucci P., Sgro C.M.P., Piazza P., Mottaran A., Vetrone L., Schiavina R., Fanti S., Brunocilla E.
{"title":"P081 PSMA-PET imaging in prostate cancer patients with high-risk biochemical recurrence: Implications from an 'EMBARK-Like' cohort","authors":"Droghetti M., Pirelli V., Bianchi L., Tamburini S., Farolfi A., Di Giorgio A., Castellucci P., Sgro C.M.P., Piazza P., Mottaran A., Vetrone L., Schiavina R., Fanti S., Brunocilla E.","doi":"10.1016/S2666-1683(24)01209-6","DOIUrl":"10.1016/S2666-1683(24)01209-6","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":12254,"journal":{"name":"European Urology Open Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142651317","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号