ArticleBJUI compass2026
External validation of the European association of urology biochemical recurrence risk groups to predict mortality after radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy in a North American cohort.
Article in BJUI compass, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to externally validate the European Association of Urology (EAU) biochemical recurrence (BCR) risk stratification in a North American population after radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiation therapy (RT), where validation remains lacking despite prior European and Asian validation. Materials and methods: We identified all patients with BCR after RP or RT between 1995 and 2023 from a North American institutional database and classified them by EAU criteria. Primary outcome was prostate cancer-specific mortality (CSM). We calculated Harrell's concordance indices (C-index) and used competing-risk regression to assess associations between EAU risk groups and CSM, comparing performance to multivariable models including age, clinical stage, Gleason grade, PSA doubling time and time to BCR. Results: Among the 940 patients (646 RP, 294 RT; 40.5% African American), 563 (59.9%) had low-risk and 377 (40.1%) high-risk BCR. The 10-year cumulative incidence of CSM was 3.6% versus 12% for low-risk versus high-risk RP patients and 18.4% versus 49.5% for low-risk versus high-risk RT patients. EAU high-risk BCR was associated with increased CSM in both groups (RP: HR 2.83, 95% CI 1.47-5.46; RT: HR 3.98, 95% CI 2.43-6.53). The EAU classification showed moderate discrimination (Harrell's C-index 0.62 for RP, 0.69 for RT). Multivariable models including clinical variables demonstrated a Harrell's C-index of 0.76 for both RP and RT. Conclusions: This first North American validation confirms moderate EAU discriminative ability. For RP patients, low 10-year CSM in low-risk BCR (3.6%) supports surveillance. However, low-risk RT BCR showed substantial CSM (18.4%), exceeding high-risk RP (12%), suggesting current criteria inadequately stratify risk after RT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.