763 844
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be
found, in the online version, at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. eururo.2016.11.031.
References
[1]
Gleason DF, Mellinger GT. Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol 1974;111:58–64.
[2]
Pierorazio PM, Walsh PC, Partin W, et al. Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int 2013;111:753–60.
[3]
Epstein JI, Zelefskyb MJ, Sjobergb DD, et al. A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason score. Eur Urol 2016;69:428–35.
[4]
Loeb S, Folkvaljon Y, Robinson D, et al. Evaluation of the 2015 Glea- son grade groups in a nationwide population-based cohort. Eur Urol 2016;69:1135–41.[5]
Epstein JI, Allsbrook Jr WC, Amin MB, et al. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005;29: 1228–42.
[6]
Fine JP, Gray RJ. A proportional hazards model for the subdistribu- tion of a competing risk. J Am Stat Assoc 1999;94:496–509.
[7]
Schymura MJ, Sun L, Percy-Laurry A. Prostate cancer collaborative stage data items—their definitions, quality, usage, and clinical implications: a review of SEER data for 2004-2010. Cancer 2014; 120(Suppl 23):3758–70.
E U R O P E A N U R O L O G Y 7 1 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 7 6 0 – 7 6 3
763