• 1
    Pierorazio PM, Mullins JK, Eifler JB et al. Contemporaneous comparison of open vs minimally invasive radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int 2013; 112: 751757
  • 2
    Schumacher MC, Burkhard FC, Thalmann GN et al. Good outcome for patients with few lymph node metastases after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2008; 54: 344352
  • 3
    Ou YC, Yang CK, Wang J et al. The trifecta outcome in 300 consecutive cases of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy according to D'Amico risk criteria. Eur J Surg Oncol 2013; 39: 107113
  • 4
    Stephenson AJ, Kattan MW, Eastham JA et al. Prostate cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy for patients treated in the prostate-specific antigen era. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 43004305
  • 5
    Walz J, Joniau S, Chun FK et al. Pathological results and rates of treatment failure in high-risk prostate cancer patients after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2011; 107: 765770
  • 6
    Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M et al. European Association of Urology. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol 2011; 59: 6171
  • 7
    Briganti A, Chun FK, Salonia A. Critical assessment of ideal nodal yield at pelvic lymphadenectomy to accurately diagnose prostate cancer nodal metastasis in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 2007; 69: 147151
  • 8
    Briganti A, Larcher A, Abdollah F et al. Updated nomogram predicting lymph node invasion in patients with prostate cancer undergoing extended pelvic lymph node dissection: the essential importance of percentage of positive cores. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 480487
  • 9
    Joniau S, Van den Bergh L, Lerut E et al. Mapping of pelvic lymph node metastases in prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2013; 63: 450458
  • 10
    Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983; 70: 4155