English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  It is not known which risk stratification system has the best discrimination ability for predicting prostate cancer death.    Methods  We identified patients with non-metastatic primary prostate adenocarcinoma diagnosis between 2004 and 2015 using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Patients were categorized in different risk groups using the three frequently used risk stratification systems of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline (NCCN-g), American Urological Association guideline (AUA-g), and European Association of Urology guideline (EAU-g), respectively. Associations between risk classification and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) were determined using Kaplan–Meier analyses and multivariable regression with Cox proportional hazards model. Area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) analyses were used to test the discrimination ability of the three risk grouping systems.    Results  We analyzed 310,062 patients with a median follow-up of 61 months. A total of 36,368 deaths occurred, including 6,033 prostate cancer deaths. For all the three risk stratification systems, the risk groups were significantly associated with PCSM. The AUC of the model relying on NCCN-g, AUA-g, and EAU-g risk stratification systems for PCSM at specifically 8 years were 0.818, 0.793, and 0.689 in the entire population; 0.819, 0.795, and 0.691 in Whites; 0.802, 0.777, and 0.681 in Blacks; 0.862, 0.818, and 0.714 in Asians; 0.845, 0.806, and 0.728 in Chinese patients. Regardless of the age, marital status, socioeconomic status, and treatment modality, AUC of the model relying on NCCN-g and AUA-g for PCSM was greater than that relying on EAU-g; AUC of the model relying on NCCN-g system was greater than that of the AUA-g system.    Conclusions  The NCCN-g and AUA-g risk stratification systems perform better in discriminating PCSM compared to the EAU-g system. The discrimination ability of the NCCN-g system was better than that of the AUA-g system. It is recommended to use NCCN-g to evaluate risk groups for prostate cancer patients and then provide more appropriate corresponding treatment recommendations.

Population-Based Comparison of Different Risk Stratification Systems Among Prostate Cancer Patients