Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 18

1.

Economic Analysis of Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening and Selective Treatment Strategies.

Roth JA, Gulati R, Gore JL, Cooperberg MR, Etzioni R.

JAMA Oncol. 2016 Jul 1;2(7):890-8. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.6275.

2.

Proteomic Profiling of Serum-Derived Exosomes from Ethnically Diverse Prostate Cancer Patients.

Turay D, Khan S, Diaz Osterman CJ, Curtis MP, Khaira B, Neidigh JW, Mirshahidi S, Casiano CA, Wall NR.

Cancer Invest. 2016;34(1):1-11. doi: 10.3109/07357907.2015.1081921. Epub 2015 Nov 4.

3.

The path to routine use of genomic biomarkers in the cancer clinic.

Boutros PC.

Genome Res. 2015 Oct;25(10):1508-13. doi: 10.1101/gr.191114.115. Review.

4.

Prostate specific antigen: the past, present and future.

Gill H, Wu J.

Curr Urol. 2013 Feb;6(4):175-8. doi: 10.1159/000343535. Epub 2013 Feb 8. Review.

5.

What do the screening trials really tell us and where do we go from here?

Etzioni RD, Thompson IM.

Urol Clin North Am. 2014 May;41(2):223-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ucl.2014.01.002. Epub 2014 Feb 19. Review.

6.

Prostate-specific antigen screening in prostate cancer: perspectives on the evidence.

Wilt TJ, Scardino PT, Carlsson SV, Basch E.

J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014 Mar;106(3):dju010. doi: 10.1093/jnci/dju010. Epub 2014 Mar 4. No abstract available.

7.

PSA mass screening: is there enough evidence?

Rocco B, Grasso A, Sosnowski R, Dell'orto PG, Albo G, Castle E, Coelho R, Patel V, Mottrie A.

Cent European J Urol. 2012;65(1):4-6. doi: 10.5173/ceju.2012.01.art1. Epub 2012 Mar 19. Review.

9.

Measuring midkine: the utility of midkine as a biomarker in cancer and other diseases.

Jones DR.

Br J Pharmacol. 2014 Jun;171(12):2925-39. doi: 10.1111/bph.12601. Review.

10.

Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer.

Loeb S, Bjurlin MA, Nicholson J, Tammela TL, Penson DF, Carter HB, Carroll P, Etzioni R.

Eur Urol. 2014 Jun;65(6):1046-55. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.12.062. Epub 2014 Jan 9. Review.

11.

Update of randomized trials for prostate cancer screening.

Vellekoop A, Loeb S.

Rev Urol. 2013;15(1):37-9. No abstract available.

12.

Comparative effectiveness of alternative prostate-specific antigen--based prostate cancer screening strategies: model estimates of potential benefits and harms.

Gulati R, Gore JL, Etzioni R.

Ann Intern Med. 2013 Feb 5;158(3):145-53. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-158-3-201302050-00003.

13.

Screening for pancreatic cancer: why, how, and who?

Poruk KE, Firpo MA, Adler DG, Mulvihill SJ.

Ann Surg. 2013 Jan;257(1):17-26. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31825ffbfb. Review.

14.

Prostate cancer screening: facts, statistics, and interpretation in response to the US Preventive Services Task Force Review.

Carlsson S, Vickers AJ, Roobol M, Eastham J, Scardino P, Lilja H, Hugosson J.

J Clin Oncol. 2012 Jul 20;30(21):2581-4. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.40.4327. Epub 2012 Jun 18. No abstract available.

15.

Active surveillance as a practical strategy to differentiate lethal and non-lethal prostate cancer subtypes.

Kakehi Y.

Asian J Androl. 2012 May;14(3):361-4. doi: 10.1038/aja.2011.151. Epub 2012 Apr 16. Review.

16.

Prostate-specific antigen velocity (PSAV) risk count improves the specificity of screening for clinically significant prostate cancer.

Loeb S, Metter EJ, Kan D, Roehl KA, Catalona WJ.

BJU Int. 2012 Feb;109(4):508-13; discussion 513-4. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10900.x. Epub 2012 Feb 1.

17.

Long-term projections of the harm-benefit trade-off in prostate cancer screening are more favorable than previous short-term estimates.

Gulati R, Mariotto AB, Chen S, Gore JL, Etzioni R.

J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Dec;64(12):1412-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.06.011.

18.

DNA methylation changes correlate with Gleason score and tumor stage in prostate cancer.

Delgado-Cruzata L, Hruby GW, Gonzalez K, McKiernan J, Benson MC, Santella RM, Shen J.

DNA Cell Biol. 2012 Feb;31(2):187-92. doi: 10.1089/dna.2011.1311. Epub 2011 Aug 10.

Supplemental Content

Support Center