640 656
[7] National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN guidelines
https:// www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp.[8]
Ploussard G, Briganti A, de la Taille A, et al. Pelvic lymph node dissection during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: efficacy, limitations, and complications-a systematic review of the litera- ture. Eur Urol 2014;65:7–16.[9]
Briganti A, Chun FK, Salonia A, et al. Complications and other surgical outcomes associated with extended pelvic lymphadenec- tomy in men with localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2006;50: 1006–13.[10]
Briganti A, Larcher A, Abdollah F, et al. Updated nomogram predict- ing lymph node invasion in patients with prostate cancer undergo- ing extended pelvic lymph node dissection: the essential importance of percentage of positive cores. Eur Urol 2012;61:480–7.[11] Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Dynamic prostate cancer
nomogram: coefficients.
https://www.mskcc.org/nomograms/ prostate/pre-op/coefficients.[12]
Roach 3rd M, Marquez C, Yuo HS, et al. Predicting the risk of lymph node involvement using the pre-treatment prostate specific anti- gen and Gleason score in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1994;28:33–7.
[13]
Godoy G, Chong KT, Cronin A, et al. Extent of pelvic lymph node dissection and the impact of standard template dissection on nomogram prediction of lymph node involvement. Eur Urol 2011;60:195–201.
[14]
Jemal A, Fedewa SA, Ma J, et al. Prostate cancer incidence and PSA testing patterns in relation to USPSTF screening recommendations. JAMA 2015;314:2054–61.
[15]
Abdollah F, Cozzarini C, Sun M, et al. Assessing the most accurate formula to predict the risk of lymph node metastases from prostate cancer in contemporary patients treated with radical prostatec- tomy and extended pelvic lymph node dissection. Radiother Oncol 2013;109:211–6.
[16]
Gandaglia G, De Lorenzis E, Novara G, et al. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and extended pelvic lymph node dissection in patients with locally-advanced prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2017;71:249–56.
[17]
Fossati N, Sjoberg DD, Capitanio U, et al. Extended pelvic lymph node dissection in patients with prostate cancer previously treated with surgery for lower urinary tract symptoms. BJU Int 2015;116:366–72.[18]
Scattoni V, Raber M, Abdollah F, et al. Biopsy schemes with the fewest cores for detecting 95% of the prostate cancers detected by a 24-core biopsy. Eur Urol 2010;57:1–8.[19]
Magi-Galluzzi C, Montironi R, Epstein JI. Contemporary Gleason grading and novel grade groups in clinical practice. Curr Opin Urol 2016;26:488–92.
[20]
Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD, et al. A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason score. Eur Urol 2016;69:428–35.
[21]
Vickers AJ, Elkin EB. Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med Decis Making 2006;26:565–74.
[22]
Rubin DB. Multiple imputation after 18+ years. J Am Stat Assoc 1996;91:473–89.
[23]
Chen DJ, Falzarano SM, McKenney JK, et al. Does cumulative pros- tate cancer length (CCL) in prostate biopsies improve prediction of clinically insignificant cancer at radical prostatectomy in patients eligible for active surveillance? BJU Int 2015;116:220–9.
[24]
Antonelli A, Vismara Fugini A, Tardanico R, Giovanessi L, Zambolin T, Simeone C. The percentage of core involved by cancer is the best predictor of insignificant prostate cancer, according to an updated definition (tumor volume up to 2.5 cm3): analysis of a cohort of 210 consecutive patients with low-risk disease. Urology 2014;83: 28–32.[25]
Kluth LA, Abdollah F, Xylinas E, et al. Pathologic nodal staging scores in patients treated with radical prostatectomy: a postoperative decision tool. Eur Urol 2014;66:439–46.
[26]
Barqawi AB, Turcanu R, Gamito EJ, et al. The value of second- opinion pathology diagnoses on prostate biopsies from patients referred for management of prostate cancer. Int J Clin Exp Pathol 2011;4:468–75.
[27]
Kattan MW. Factors affecting the accuracy of prediction models limit the comparison of rival prediction models when applied to separate data sets. Eur Urol 2011;59:566–7.
[28]
Vickers AJ, Sjoberg DD, European U. Guidelines for reporting of statistics in European urology. Eur Urol 2015;67:181–7.
[29]
Trock BJ, Guo CC, Gonzalgo ML, Magheli A, Loeb S, Epstein JI. Tertiary Gleason patterns and biochemical recurrence after pros- tatectomy: proposal for a modified Gleason scoring system. J Urol 2009;182:1364–70.[30]
Morlacco A, Sharma V, Viers BR, et al. The incremental role of magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer staging before radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2017;71:701–4.[31]
Brand TC, Zhang N, Crager MR, et al. Patient-specific meta-analysis of 2 clinical validation studies to predict pathologic outcomes in prostate cancer using the 17-gene genomic prostate score. Urology 2016;89:69–75.
E U R O P E A N U R O L O G Y 7 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 6 3 2 – 6 4 0
640