ライフサイエンスコーパス: radical prostatectomy

1 monitoring, 545 to radiotherapy, and 553 to radical prostatectomy).

2 atio, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-3.7; P = .02) vs open radical prostatectomy.

3 PCa) patients with biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy.

4 n the incidence of groin hernia repair after radical prostatectomy.

5 was shown to predict poor survival following radical prostatectomy.

6 o had undergone MP MR imaging and subsequent radical prostatectomy.

7 59.2 years) who underwent MR imaging before radical prostatectomy.

8 ntrast material-enhanced MR imaging prior to radical prostatectomy.

9 t multiparametric MR imaging at 3.0 T before radical prostatectomy.

10 d at baseline, mid-point, and at the time of radical prostatectomy.

11 antigen level #15 mug/L) immediately before radical prostatectomy.

12 ovel techniques in nerve preservation during radical prostatectomy.

13 throughs in improving potency outcomes after radical prostatectomy.

14 ted and DW MR imaging of the prostate before radical prostatectomy.

15 s to anastomotic stricture and RUF following radical prostatectomy.

16 igh risk of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

17 er screening, came a renewed interest in the radical prostatectomy.

18 retropubic prostatectomy to robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy.

19 of open, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy.

20 ative radiotherapy to the prostate bed after radical prostatectomy.

21 order to improve potency outcomes following radical prostatectomy.

22 efore and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radical prostatectomy.

23 dorectal magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and radical prostatectomy.

24 zed trial, to improve overall survival after radical prostatectomy.

25 anuary 2003 and March 2004 before undergoing radical prostatectomy.

26 skills that do not translate well from open radical prostatectomy.

27 ohort had a measurable serum PSA level after radical prostatectomy.

28 ated with the risk of tumor recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

29 ncontinence and erectile function after open radical prostatectomy.

30 e of detecting PSA in the serum of men after radical prostatectomy.

31 nuscripts that emphasize key aspects of open radical prostatectomy.

32 imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging before radical prostatectomy.

33 acterise the learning curve for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

34 viously untreated prostate cancer treated by radical prostatectomy.

35 ort of 234 patients presenting for biopsy or radical prostatectomy.

36 g-term oncologic outcomes after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

37 ience supporting penile rehabilitation after radical prostatectomy.

38 multaneous (18)F-fluciclovine PET/MRI before radical prostatectomy.

39 ts underwent 3.0-T MR imaging shortly before radical prostatectomy.

40 ogy in men with localized disease undergoing radical prostatectomy.

41 CT at a median of 4 d (range, 0-47 d) before radical prostatectomy.

42 ion therapy for prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy.

43 y one quarter of patients who have undergone radical prostatectomy.

44 his cohort demonstrated adverse pathology at radical prostatectomy.

45 r active surveillance, radiation therapy, or radical prostatectomy.

46 ne salvage radiation treatment after primary radical prostatectomy.

47 n patients with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

48 iochemical recurrence in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy.

49 lity for patients who are not candidates for radical prostatectomy.

50 ogression to metastasis in patients choosing radical prostatectomy.

51 r 563 prostate cancer patients who underwent radical prostatectomy.

52 recurring after image-guided radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy.

53 metastases, and/or PCa-specific death after radical prostatectomy.

54 tal Association annual surveys and performed radical prostatectomies.

55 ssociated with a 30% increase in the rate of radical prostatectomies.

56 , hysterectomy (1.8% vs 3.9%; P < .001), and radical prostatectomy (1.0% vs 2.4%; P < .001).

57 erapy (10.57 QALYs), IMRT (10.51 QALYs), and radical prostatectomy (10.23 QALYs).

58 operations were performed for 20 500 (67.6%) radical prostatectomies, 1405 (6.8%) total nephrectomies

59 y (57.9% [95% CI, 57.4%-58.4%]), followed by radical prostatectomy (19.1% [95% CI, 18.7%-19.5%]) and

60 cohort included 30345 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy; 20802, total nephrectomy; 8060, p

61 Among men assigned to radical prostatectomy, 21 (5.8%) died from prostate canc

62 ned urinary incontinence was associated with radical prostatectomy (33.6 [95% CI, 27.8-39.2]); acute

63 akage (> or =1 event/d) was more common with radical prostatectomy (35%) than with radiation therapy

64 rsened by 3 months for patients who received radical prostatectomy (36.2 [95% CI, 30.4-42.0]), extern

65 tor curve [AUC] 0.70 [95% CI 0.65-0.76]) and radical prostatectomy (4.0 [1.6-9.7]; p=0.0024; AUC 0.57

66 fic antigen reached a threshold (1 ng/mL for radical prostatectomy; 4 ng/mL for radiation or primary

67 314 pursued active surveillance (27.5%), 469 radical prostatectomy (41.1%), 249 external beam radioth

68 on occurred frequently after all treatments (radical prostatectomy, 58%; radiation therapy, 43%; andr

69 isk disease), of whom 1523 (59.7%) underwent radical prostatectomy, 598 (23.5%) EBRT, and 429 (16.8%)

70 tive surveillance exceeded that from upfront radical prostatectomy after 3-5 years of follow-up and m

71 mprove biochemical progression compared with radical prostatectomy alone (risk difference, 0% [CI, -7

72 opic radical prostatectomy is eclipsing open radical prostatectomy among men with clinically localize

73 s occurred in 23 (33.8%) of 68 patients with radical prostatectomy and 16 (50%) of 32 patients previo

74 Of these, 34 (89%) had undergone radical prostatectomy and 4 (11%) had undergone radiatio

75 tients with pN1 prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy and anatomically extended pelvic l

76 ipants had hospital and physician claims for radical prostatectomy and diagnostic codes for prostate

77 emical recurrence (BCR) after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and ePLND in prostate cancer patie

78 2016, 920 patients underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and ePLND with or without SNB (184

79 ith intermediate- and high-grade PCa, before radical prostatectomy and extended pelvic lymph node (LN

80 ve and intraoperative decision-making during radical prostatectomy and focal therapy treatments.

81 early prostate cancer to watchful waiting or radical prostatectomy and followed them through the end

82 is often necessary in men who have undergone radical prostatectomy and have evidence of prostate-canc

83 thermore, some patients who have undergone a radical prostatectomy and have no evidence of disease fo

84 This article focuses on outcomes with open radical prostatectomy and is not meant to compare open r

85 ostatectomy and is not meant to compare open radical prostatectomy and minimally invasive approaches.

86 ent, patients are more likely to recur after radical prostatectomy and progression to metastatic dise

87 Men treated with radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy had a signif

88 To review the ways in which the quality of radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted radical prostat

89 hip between adverse pathology at the time of radical prostatectomy and serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-

90 in patients with suspected recurrence after radical prostatectomy and to identify an optimal imaging

91 ears), all of whom were scheduled to undergo radical prostatectomy and underwent preoperative 3-T mul

92 (PSADT) predicted outcome in men undergoing radical prostatectomy and whether any definition enhance

93 underwent 1.5-T endorectal MR imaging before radical prostatectomy and who fulfilled all inclusion cr

94 We compared active monitoring, radical prostatectomy, and external-beam radiotherapy fo

95 radiation therapy, in 1-6% of patients after radical prostatectomy, and in 5-9% following brachythera

96 t of patients from the USA who had undergone radical prostatectomy, and in a cohort of randomly selec

97 vestigated the effects of active monitoring, radical prostatectomy, and radical radiotherapy with hor

98 Patients then underwent radical prostatectomy, and the resected gland was sliced

99 ecurrence for the cohort of patients who had radical prostatectomy, and time to death from prostate c

100 subset of anastomotic contractures following radical prostatectomy are recurrent and refractory to st

101 term follow-up of RaRP, ORP and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy are still necessary.

102 ancer (PCa) salvage radiotherapy (SRT) after radical prostatectomy are usually drawn in the absence o

103 adenocarcinoma of the prostate, followed by radical prostatectomy as a form of primary monotherapy w

104 and the generation of early erections after radical prostatectomy as a strategy to improve erectile

105 (PCa) cohorts identified NRP1 expression at radical prostatectomy as an independent prognostic bioma

106 effect profile, there is renewed interest in radical prostatectomy as the primary treatment for high-

107 d salvage therapy rates for MIRP versus open radical prostatectomy assessed whether MIRP surgeon volu

108 and Dec 31, 2014, 19 256 patients underwent radical prostatectomy at an NHS provider in England.

109 PSA) in sera from patients who had undergone radical prostatectomy at concentrations as low as 14 fg/

110 2 patients with prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy at one of four US academic centers

111 We analyzed 471 men who underwent radical prostatectomy at our institution with known fami

112 ents with high-risk pathological features at radical prostatectomy at the cost of moderate urinary an

113 te cancer samples from patients treated with radical prostatectomy at three academic institutions wer

114 ional cohort of 12,677 patients treated with radical prostatectomy between 1987 and 2005 was analyzed

115 mapped all patients in England who underwent radical prostatectomy between Jan 1, 2010, and Dec 31, 2

116 ) who underwent endorectal MR imaging before radical prostatectomy between January 2007 and April 201

117 artners at multiple centers before and after radical prostatectomy, brachytherapy, or external-beam r

118 ions in cancer recurrence after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, but improvements in outcome seem

119 GFB] in six nonrecurrent and seven recurrent radical prostatectomy cases.

120 d the effect of being an established robotic radical prostatectomy centre at the start of 2010 on net

121 For each radical prostatectomy centre we analysed the effect of h

122 Of the 65 radical prostatectomy centres open at the start of the s

123 Radical prostatectomy centres that closed were more like

124 KDM5C expression patterns in two independent radical prostatectomy cohorts (822 prostate tumors in to

125 se in groin hernia repair was observed after radical prostatectomy compared with controls, and men wh

126 s, the adjusted mean sexual domain score for radical prostatectomy decreased more than for EBRT (mean

127 iate analysis, men with adverse pathology at radical prostatectomy demonstrated lower median serum 25

128 die from prostate cancer within 15 years of radical prostatectomy, despite the presence of adverse c

129 Androgen deprivation used adjuvant to radical prostatectomy did not improve biochemical progre

130 ng soy protein isolate for 2 years following radical prostatectomy did not reduce biochemical recurre

131 etected during the early era of PSA testing, radical prostatectomy did not significantly reduce all-c

132 .0 years, 171 of 364 men (47.0%) assigned to radical prostatectomy died, as compared with 183 of 367

133 he Nationwide Inpatient Sample who underwent radical prostatectomy during MIRP diffusion between Janu

134 l enhanced) and nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy, during which IFS analysis was use

135 d high-grade prostate epithelial tissue from radical prostatectomies, each with its immediately surro

136 Treatment with radical prostatectomy, EBRT, or active surveillance was

137 outcomes and adverse effects associated with radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy (

138 ith direct costs of immediate treatment with radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy,

139 To compare quality of life (QOL) after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, and b

140 The varying QoL outcomes for radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, brach

141 Treatment with radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, brach

142 OL outcomes for 409 patients 36 months after radical prostatectomy, external-beam radiation therapy,

143 ent endorectal MR at 1.5 T before undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer and had at lea

144 ctable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer and identify a

145 SA in the serum of 18 men who have undergone radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer.

146 onformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) and open radical prostatectomy for treating prostate cancer.

147 rostate cancer among individuals who undergo radical prostatectomy for treatment is around 25%.

148 t trend in shifting the standard of care for radical prostatectomy from an open to a robotic-assisted

149 e has been a changing trend in technique for radical prostatectomy from open surgery to minimally inv

150 high discordance between prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason scores; however, extended

151 ore, 52.3 vs 65.2, P < .001) than men in the radical prostatectomy group.

152 One man died after surgery in the radical-prostatectomy group.

153 Surgeons with previous experience of open radical prostatectomy had significantly poorer results t

154 progress in improving potency outcomes after radical prostatectomy has been achieved due to a better

155 Salvage radical prostatectomy has been described in a small seri

156 Radical prostatectomy has evolved enormously over the la

157 decades in improving potency outcomes after radical prostatectomy has resulted from an improved appr

158 Robotic and radical prostatectomy has similar outcomes with signific

159 of radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy have been assessed, including qual

160 al technique during the established steps of radical prostatectomy have led to improved functional ou

161 Men undergoing MIRP versus open radical prostatectomy have lower risk for perioperative

162 Superlative survival expectations following radical prostatectomy have shifted the paradigm of asses

163 Up to 33% of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy have unilateral, low-grade, organ-

164 shorter time to biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy (hazard ratio (HR) 5.0, 95% confid

165 of recent studies relevant to robot-assisted radical prostatectomy, highlighting technical modificati

166 prostatectomy now accounts for a minority of radical prostatectomies in the United States, the concep

167 counted for 10.4% (95% CI, 10.2-10.7) of all radical prostatectomies in the United States.

168 d that demonstrate the long-term efficacy of radical prostatectomy in a high-risk population with 15-

169 compared PSI incidence between MIRP and open radical prostatectomy in each year during the study.

170 t material-enhanced imaging) obtained before radical prostatectomy in patients between September 2008

171 In total, 190 men underwent radical prostatectomy in the cohort.

172 ose at the highest risk for recurrence after radical prostatectomy include men with seminal vesicle i

173 gnificantly associated with recurrence after radical prostatectomy including NuSAP, a protein that bi

174 Today open radical prostatectomy is a less-invasive procedure with

175 Radical prostatectomy is an acceptable treatment alterat

176 recurrence risk of prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy is critical for determining whethe

177 Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is eclipsing open radical prostate

178 y placement of a penile prosthesis following radical prostatectomy is now a proven and viable option.

179 stasis and treatment failure in men for whom radical prostatectomy is planned.

180 state cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) after radical prostatectomy is poorly defined for patients tre

181 Patients with biochemical failure (BF) after radical prostatectomy may benefit from dose-intensified

182 c surgeries, such as partial nephrectomy and radical prostatectomy may soon incorporate IGS.

183 d laparoscopic or robotic minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (MIRP) are costlier alternatives t

184 Minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (MIRP) has diffused rapidly despit

185 (n = 118,407), hysterectomy (n = 26,639), or radical prostatectomy (n = 11,183).

186 Although open radical prostatectomy now accounts for a minority of rad

187 ents with regional lymph node involvement at radical prostatectomy often experience disease progressi

188 s calculated for a group of men treated with radical prostatectomy (open and minimally invasive) and

189 d early in the study period or who underwent radical prostatectomy or endocrine therapy exhibited sli

190 rm urinary, bowel, and sexual function after radical prostatectomy or external-beam radiation therapy

191 nsity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), or radical prostatectomy or followed up by active surveilla

192 median PSA value, 7.8 ng per milliliter) to radical prostatectomy or observation and followed them t

193 ed 731 men with localized prostate cancer to radical prostatectomy or observation.

194 incidence of groin hernia repair seen after radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy for prostate

195 Radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy has been show

196 Most patients undergoing treatment elect for radical prostatectomy or radiation.

197 Regardless of radical treatment type (radical prostatectomy or radical radiotherapy), increasi

198 with indolent prostate cancer often opt for radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy treatment for thei

199 gainst an accurate sampling strategy such as radical prostatectomy or transperineal prostate mapping

200 OR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.37-0.53]; P < .001), and radical prostatectomy (OR, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.25-0.61]; P <

201 y, intensity-modulated radiation therapy, or radical prostatectomy) or observation (active surveillan

202 valuated brachytherapy, cryotherapy, robotic radical prostatectomy, or photon-beam or intensity-modul

203 o active monitoring (surveillance strategy), radical prostatectomy, or three-dimensional conformal ex

204 s blood loss and blood transfusion than open radical prostatectomy (ORP), has a positive margin rate

205 sisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and open radical prostatectomy (ORP), we sought to re-examine the

206 with a robot and the change in the number of radical prostatectomies (P<0.0001).

207 Compared with radical prostatectomy patients (n = 201), radiation-ther

208 oorer hormone-related symptoms compared with radical prostatectomy patients (P < .05).

209 A cohort of radical prostatectomy patients was stratified into men w

210 re of prostate cancer is the primary goal of radical prostatectomy, preserving erectile function is a

211 In those who eventually underwent radical prostatectomy, PSAV (P = .79) and PSADT (P = .87

212 SE OF REVIEW: The advent of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy purported fewer complications incl

213 Although radical prostatectomy, radiation and androgen ablation a

214 ET/CT in men who were initially managed with radical prostatectomy, radiation treatment, or both and

215 e and clinical stage) and by treatment type (radical prostatectomy, radical radiotherapy, androgen de

216 f randomized trials comparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and open radical prostatect

217 orary critical appraisal of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RaRP) through a review of the rec

218 ported that, compared with watchful waiting, radical prostatectomy reduced crude [corrected] all-caus

219 Radical prostatectomy reduced disease recurrence at 5 ye

220 Radical prostatectomy reduces mortality among men with l

221 Radical prostatectomy, regardless of the technology used

222 acquire a robotic facility and the rates of radical prostatectomy relative to the prevalence of robo

223 viously reported the learning curve for open radical prostatectomy, reporting large decreases in recu

224 We assessed the effect of radical prostatectomy (RP) and external beam radiotherap

225 mes for salvage radiotherapy (SRT) following radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer, includin

226 ving quality of life (QOL) in men undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer.

227 ring it with multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and radical prostatectomy (RP) histopathology.

228 ing of postoperative radiotherapy (RT) after radical prostatectomy (RP) is unclear.

229 Men with BR of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiation (RT) were treate

230 sion (CCP) score, in predicting contemporary radical prostatectomy (RP) outcomes.

231 st in an independent, blinded cohort of post-radical prostatectomy (RP) patients.

232 35 nonmalignant prostate tissue samples, 293 radical prostatectomy (RP) samples (cohort 1, training),

233 rachytherapy (LDR) alone, EBRT alone, and/or radical prostatectomy (RP) should be offered to eligible

234 rostate-specific antigen (PSA) failure after radical prostatectomy (RP) to triage those who will bene

235 aluated for variation in prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy (RP) volume.

236 e study comprised 605 patients, treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) with curative intent for PCa

237 logic and biochemical outcomes after delayed radical prostatectomy (RP), using descriptive statistics

238 ging (pT) of prostate cancer (PCa) following radical prostatectomy (RP).

239 ere candidates for AS but elected to undergo radical prostatectomy (RP).

240 en with high-risk prostate cancer treated by radical prostatectomy (RP).

241 greater costs compared with open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP).

242 Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy seems to involve skills that do no

243 d robotic centres and ten (27%) closed their radical prostatectomy service during the study period.

244 idence), and the likelihood of closing their radical prostatectomy service.

245 Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy shows equivalent and possibly bett

246 Inclusion criteria were radical prostatectomy specimen TZ cancer larger than 0.5

247 cent G3 and Gleason pattern 4 (G4) tumors in radical prostatectomy specimens and found that all were

248 t [MSKCC] cohort) and 117 (Cambridge cohort) radical prostatectomy specimens from low-risk to high-ri

249 a (CA) are a frequent microscopic finding in radical prostatectomy specimens from men undergoing trea

250 trast and subcellular detail, obtained in 24 radical prostatectomy specimens immediately after excisi

251 Histopathologic examination of whole-mount radical prostatectomy specimens was used as the referenc

252 NA from 70 formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded radical prostatectomy specimens with known long-term out

253 From 197 patients with radical prostatectomy specimens, 28 patients with TZ can

254 primary tumor prostate tissues derived from radical prostatectomy specimens.

255 mediate-, and high-risk prostate cancer from radical prostatectomy specimens.

256 on tumor tissue microarrays constructed from radical prostatectomy specimens.

257 phenomenologic assessment of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy surgical quality does not exist, b

258 We evaluate recently reported robot-assisted radical prostatectomy surgical techniques aimed at limit

259 cancer has long been an established part of radical prostatectomy that provides prognostic informati

260 inical data and pathological specimens after radical prostatectomy that suggest a further increase of

261 In patients who undergo radical prostatectomy, the accuracy of combined 1.5-T en

262 d a substantial reduction in mortality after radical prostatectomy; the number needed to treat to pre

263 erectile function during a robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy, there must be a detailed understa

264 In this cohort of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy, those with first-degree relatives

265 wn and novel miRNAs in histologically normal radical prostatectomy tissue.

266 urveillance for low-risk cancer; restricting radical prostatectomy to high-volume surgeons; and using

267 ned from diseased prostates after removal by radical prostatectomy to identify potential immunoregula

268 as the use of any drug or device at or after radical prostatectomy to maximize erectile function reco

269 c survival was computed as the interval from radical prostatectomy to PCa-specific death.

270 were referred for (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT before radical prostatectomy to rule out metastasis.

271 s involves a conceptual paradigm shift from 'radical' prostatectomy to neurosurgery of the prostate.

272 ohort study of 221637 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy, total nephrectomy, partial nephre

273 in the UK who were incontinent 6 weeks after radical prostatectomy (trial 1) or transurethral resecti

274 se the accuracy of prognostication following radical prostatectomy using formalin-fixed specimens.

275 The median interval after radical prostatectomy was 8.9 y (95% confidence interval

276 ohort of men with localized prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy was associated with a greater decr

277 However, radical prostatectomy was associated with a reduced risk

278 In adjusted analyses, MIRP versus open radical prostatectomy was associated with fewer perioper

279 Radical prostatectomy was associated with reduced all-ca

280 Radical prostatectomy was associated with worse urinary

281 incontinence persisting 1 to 17 years after radical prostatectomy was conducted at a university and

282 patients who underwent MP MR imaging before radical prostatectomy was retrospectively used.

283 The learning curve for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy was slower than the previously rep

284 More radical prostatectomies were performed in areas where th

285 Significantly more radical prostatectomies were performed in hospitals with

286 parametric MR imaging of the prostate before radical prostatectomy were included in a prospective dat

287 prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels after radical prostatectomy were included in this retrospectiv

288 ging, with a pelvic phased-array coil before radical prostatectomy were included.

289 tate adenocarcinoma and scheduled to undergo radical prostatectomy were recruited at seven institutio

290 h prostate-specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy) were prospectively selected for t

291 , 0.62 [95% CI, 0.56-0.68]) when determining radical prostatectomy, while regional variation (OR, 0.5

292 ecific survival in PCa patients treated with radical prostatectomy who develop biochemical failure du

293 study included 195 PCa patients treated with radical prostatectomy who underwent (11)C-choline PET/CT

294 PCa early biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy with (68)Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT in pati

295 and the patient underwent a robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy with bilateral pelvic lymphadenect

296 t pelvic (99m)Tc-trofolastat SPECT/CT before radical prostatectomy with extended pelvic LN dissection

297 adaptations of the conventional approach to radical prostatectomy with the aim of preserving contine

298 atients with prostate adenocarcinoma who had radical prostatectomy (with or without postoperative rad

299 nosis may be related to the effectiveness of radical prostatectomy (with or without secondary therapy

300 s who underwent nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy without multiparametric MR imaging