Header Logo

Connection

Michael Cookson to Prostatectomy

Back to Details
This is a "connection" page, showing publications Michael Cookson has written about Prostatectomy.
Michael Cookson
Connection Strength
7.002
Prostatectomy
  1. Best evidence regarding the superiority or inferiority of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Urol Clin North Am. 2014 Nov; 41(4):493-502.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.441
  2. Positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy: much ado about nothing? Urol Oncol. 2013 Apr; 31(3):285-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.401
  3. Margin control in open radical prostatectomy: what are the real outcomes? Urol Oncol. 2010 Mar-Apr; 28(2):205-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.324
  4. Should pelvic lymph node dissection be performed with radical prostatectomy? No. J Urol. 2010 Apr; 183(4):1284-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.323
  5. Comparison of transfusion requirements between open and robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2010 Oct; 106(7):1036-40.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.323
  6. Impact of surgeon and hospital volume on outcomes of radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol. 2010 May-Jun; 28(3):243-50.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.305
  7. Outcomes of patients undergoing radical cystoprostatectomy for bladder cancer with prostatic involvement on final pathology. BJU Int. 2009 Oct; 104(8):1091-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.305
  8. Effect of a large prostate gland on open and robotically assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2008 May; 101(9):1140-4.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.285
  9. A comparison of the incidence and location of positive surgical margins in robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and open retropubic radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2007 Dec; 178(6):2385-9; discussion 2389-90.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.275
  10. The evidence-based pathway for peri-operative management of open and robotically assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2007 May; 99(5):1103-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.262
  11. Impact of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2006 Aug; 68(2):249-52.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.252
  12. Positive influence of robotically assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy on the collaborative-care pathway for open radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2006 Mar; 97(3):473-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.245
  13. Safely reducing length of stay after open radical retropubic prostatectomy under the guidance of a clinical care pathway. Cancer. 2005 Aug 15; 104(4):747-51.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.236
  14. Predicting blood loss and transfusion requirements during radical prostatectomy: the significant negative impact of increasing body mass index. J Urol. 2004 May; 171(5):1861-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.216
  15. Percent of cancer in the biopsy set predicts pathological findings after prostatectomy. J Urol. 2002 May; 167(5):2032-5; discussion 2036.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.188
  16. Health related quality of life assessment after radical prostatectomy in men with prostate specific antigen only recurrence. J Urol. 2001 Dec; 166(6):2286-90.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.183
  17. Advanced Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline PART II. J Urol. 2021 Jan; 205(1):22-29.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.168
  18. Advanced Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline PART I. J Urol. 2021 Jan; 205(1):14-21.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.168
  19. Editorial Comment. J Urol. 2020 05; 203(5):931-932.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.161
  20. Prognostic significance of prostate-specific antigen in stage T1c prostate cancer treated by radical prostatectomy. Urology. 1997 Jun; 49(6):887-93.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.134
  21. Pathological staging and biochemical recurrence after neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy in combination with radical prostatectomy in clinically localized prostate cancer: results of a phase II study. Br J Urol. 1997 Mar; 79(3):432-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.131
  22. Biochemical recurrence-free survival after robotic-assisted laparoscopic vs open radical prostatectomy for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. Urology. 2014 Jun; 83(6):1309-15.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.108
  23. A 57-year-old man with a history of prostatectomy and pelvic irradiation presents with recurrent urinary tract infections, hematuria, and pelvic pain. Urology. 2013 Feb; 81(2):221-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.099
  24. Salvage robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a single institution, 5-year experience. J Urol. 2013 Feb; 189(2):507-13.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.097
  25. Recovery of urinary function after radical prostatectomy: identification of trajectory cluster groups. J Urol. 2012 Apr; 187(4):1346-51.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.093
  26. Comparative analysis of whole mount processing and systematic sampling of radical prostatectomy specimens: pathological outcomes and risk of biochemical recurrence. J Urol. 2010 Oct; 184(4):1334-40.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.084
  27. Robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: comparison of short-term biochemical recurrence-free survival. J Urol. 2010 Mar; 183(3):990-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.080
  28. Impact of positive apical surgical margins on likelihood of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2009 Dec; 182(6):2695-701.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.080
  29. Pathological stage T2 subgroups to predict biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy. J Urol. 2009 Nov; 182(5):2291-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.078
  30. Immediate surgical outcomes for radical prostatectomy in the University HealthSystem Consortium Clinical Data Base: the impact of hospital case volume, hospital size and geographical region on 48,000 patients. BJU Int. 2009 Nov; 104(10):1442-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.078
  31. Risk factors for urothelial carcinoma of the prostate in patients undergoing radical cystoprostatectomy for bladder cancer. BJU Int. 2009 Oct; 104(7):934-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.076
  32. A critical review of clinical practice guidelines for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2008 Aug; 180(2):451-9; discussion 460.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.072
  33. Adjuvant weekly docetaxel for patients with high risk prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: a multi-institutional pilot study. J Urol. 2007 May; 177(5):1777-81.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.066
  34. Comparison of length of hospital stay between radical retropubic prostatectomy and robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. J Urol. 2007 Mar; 177(3):929-31.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.066
  35. Toxicity following high-dose salvage radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2007 Mar; 99(3):529-33.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.065
  36. Tumour volume is an independent predictor of prostate-specific antigen recurrence in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2006 Jun; 97(6):1169-72.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.062
  37. Morbidity and efficacy of genitofemoral nerve grafts with radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology. 2006 Apr; 67(4):789-92.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.062
  38. Robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus retropubic radical prostatectomy: a prospective assessment of postoperative pain. J Urol. 2005 Sep; 174(3):912-4; discussion 914.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.059
  39. Incidence and location of prostate and urothelial carcinoma in prostates from cystoprostatectomies: implications for possible apical sparing surgery. J Urol. 2004 Feb; 171(2 Pt 1):646-51.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.053
  40. The free/total prostate-specific antigen ratio (%fPSA) is the best predictor of tumor involvement in the radical prostatectomy specimen among men with an elevated PSA. Urol Oncol. 2002 Sep-Oct; 7(5):195-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.048
  41. Prediction of tumour volume and pathological stage in radical prostatectomy specimens is not improved by taking more prostate needle-biopsy cores. BJU Int. 2001 Nov; 88(7):722-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.045
  42. Ratio of free-to-total prostate specific antigen correlates with tumor volume in patients with increased prostate specific antigen. J Urol. 2001 Feb; 165(2):455-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.043
  43. Correlation between Gleason score of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen: accuracy and clinical implications. J Urol. 1997 Feb; 157(2):559-62.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.033
  44. Optimization of initial prostate biopsy in clinical practice: sampling, labeling and specimen processing. J Urol. 2013 Jun; 189(6):2039-46.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.025
  45. Tumor volume as a predictor of adverse pathologic features and biochemical recurrence (BCR) in radical prostatectomy specimens: a tale of two methods. World J Urol. 2011 Feb; 29(1):15-20.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.021
  46. Erectile function outcome reporting after clinically localized prostate cancer treatment. J Urol. 2007 Aug; 178(2):597-601.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.017
  47. Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update. J Urol. 2007 Jun; 177(6):2106-31.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.017
  48. Urothelial carcinoma of the prostate. Urology. 2007 Jan; 69(1 Suppl):50-61.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.016
  49. Adverse prognostic significance of capsular incision with radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol. 2004 Jul; 172(1):119-23.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.014
  50. Randomized prospective evaluation of extended versus limited lymph node dissection in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2003 Jan; 169(1):145-7; discussion 147-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.012
  51. Clinical significance of repeat sextant biopsies in prostate cancer patients. Urology. 1997 Mar; 49(3A Suppl):113-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.008
Connection Strength

The connection strength for concepts is the sum of the scores for each matching publication.

Publication scores are based on many factors, including how long ago they were written and whether the person is a first or senior author.