2019
Conservative management of low‐risk prostate cancer among young versus older men in the United States: Trends and outcomes from a novel national database
Mahal A, Butler S, Franco I, Muralidhar V, Larios D, Pike L, Zhao S, Sanford N, Dess R, Feng F, D’Amico A, Spratt D, Yu J, Nguyen P, Rebbeck T, Mahal B. Conservative management of low‐risk prostate cancer among young versus older men in the United States: Trends and outcomes from a novel national database. Cancer 2019, 125: 3338-3346. PMID: 31251398, DOI: 10.1002/cncr.32332.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchConceptsLow-risk prostate cancerPositive biopsy coresShort-term outcomesBiopsy coresProstate cancerManagement of low-risk prostate cancerOlder patientsProstate cancer-specific mortality ratesConservative managementProstate cancer-specific mortalityCancer-specific mortality ratesActive surveillance/watchful waitingRate of conservative managementOlder menCancer-specific mortalityShort-term safetyQuality-of-life implicationsDefinitive treatmentYounger patientsOverall mortalityPatientsMortality rateProstateNational databaseCancer
2015
Gleason score 5 + 3 = 8 prostate cancer: much more like Gleason score 9?
Mahal B, Muralidhar V, Chen Y, Choueiri T, Hoffman K, Hu J, Sweeney C, Yu J, Feng F, Trinh Q, Nguyen P. Gleason score 5 + 3 = 8 prostate cancer: much more like Gleason score 9? BJU International 2015, 118: 95-101. PMID: 26207642, DOI: 10.1111/bju.13239.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchConceptsProstate cancer-specific mortalityGleason score 5Risk of prostate cancer-specific mortalityGleason score 4Prostate cancerScore 5Increased risk of PCSMGray competing risk regression analysisProstate cancer-specific mortality outcomesProstate cancer-specific mortality ratesScore 4Competing risk regression analysisGleason score 3Gleason score 8Gleason score 9Primary Gleason patternReference group of patientsCancer-specific mortalityAggressive treatment strategiesGroup of patientsRisk regression analysisHighest-risk patientsGleason 4Gleason scoreGleason pattern