Published in BMC Med Inform Decis Mak on April 08, 2014
The Melanoma MAICare Framework: A Microsimulation Model for the Assessment of Individualized Cancer Care. Cancer Inform (2016) 0.75
Tailored Treatment of Colorectal Cancer: Surgical, Molecular, and Genetic Considerations. Clin Med Insights Oncol (2017) 0.75
Using Active Learning for Speeding up Calibration in Simulation Models. Med Decis Making (2015) 0.75
Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin (2009) 83.57
Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale-Update based on new evidence. Gastroenterology (2003) 14.67
Colorectal cancer. Lancet (2010) 8.36
Cost-effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer in the general population. JAMA (2000) 5.88
Cost-effectiveness analyses of colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med (2002) 5.76
A comparison of colonoscopy and double-contrast barium enema for surveillance after polypectomy. National Polyp Study Work Group. N Engl J Med (2000) 4.84
NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: colon cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw (2009) 4.41
Colorectal cancer surveillance: 2005 update of an American Society of Clinical Oncology practice guideline. J Clin Oncol (2005) 4.10
NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: rectal cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw (2009) 3.37
Surgical resection of hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer: a systematic review of published studies. Br J Cancer (2006) 3.26
Cost-effectiveness of computed tomographic colonography screening for colorectal cancer in the medicare population. J Natl Cancer Inst (2010) 3.05
Which colon cancer screening test? A comparison of costs, effectiveness, and compliance. Am J Med (2001) 2.87
ASGE guideline: colorectal cancer screening and surveillance. Gastrointest Endosc (2006) 2.63
Cost of patient follow-up after potentially curative colorectal cancer treatment. JAMA (1995) 2.46
Surgical resection of pulmonary metastases from colorectal cancer: a systematic review of published series. Ann Thorac Surg (2007) 2.42
End points for colon cancer adjuvant trials: observations and recommendations based on individual patient data from 20,898 patients enrolled onto 18 randomized trials from the ACCENT Group. J Clin Oncol (2007) 2.41
Follow-up strategies for patients treated for non-metastatic colorectal cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2007) 2.27
Follow-up of patients with curatively resected colorectal cancer: a practice guideline. BMC Cancer (2003) 2.26
The MISCAN-COLON simulation model for the evaluation of colorectal cancer screening. Comput Biomed Res (1999) 1.98
Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after cancer resection: a consensus update by the American Cancer Society and the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology (2006) 1.89
A prospective randomized study of follow-up after radical surgery for colorectal cancer. Br J Surg (1997) 1.87
Follow-up after curative resection of colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum (2007) 1.85
Survival following recurrence in stage II and III colon cancer: findings from the ACCENT data set. J Clin Oncol (2008) 1.82
A systematic comparison of microsimulation models of colorectal cancer: the role of assumptions about adenoma progression. Med Decis Making (2011) 1.77
Role of follow-up in management of local recurrences of colorectal cancer: a prospective, randomized study. Dis Colon Rectum (1998) 1.76
Diagnostic precision of carcinoembryonic antigen in the detection of recurrence of colorectal cancer. Surg Oncol (2008) 1.68
The cost-effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer. CMAJ (2010) 1.67
Colorectal cancer screening: efficiency and effectiveness. Health Econ (1998) 1.59
Clinical trial enrollment, patient characteristics, and survival differences in prospectively registered metastatic colorectal cancer patients. Cancer (2009) 1.52
Hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer: preoperative detection and assessment of resectability with helical CT. Radiology (2001) 1.52
Value and cost of follow-up after adjuvant treatment of patients with Dukes' C colonic cancer. Br J Surg (2001) 1.51
Fecal DNA testing compared with conventional colorectal cancer screening methods: a decision analysis. Gastroenterology (2004) 1.49
Hepatic resection for isolated metastasis from colorectal carcinoma. Am J Surg (1985) 1.46
Cost effectiveness analysis of intensive versus conventional follow up after curative resection for colorectal cancer. BMJ (2004) 1.41
Whole-body PET imaging with [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose in management of recurrent colorectal cancer. Arch Surg (1999) 1.34
Calibration of disease simulation model using an engineering approach. Value Health (2009) 1.27
Practice parameters for the surveillance and follow-up of patients with colon and rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum (2004) 1.26
Stool DNA testing to screen for colorectal cancer in the Medicare population: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med (2010) 1.24
Postsurgical surveillance of colon cancer: preliminary cost analysis of physician examination, carcinoembryonic antigen testing, chest x-ray, and colonoscopy. Ann Surg (1998) 1.22
Is (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in recurrent colorectal cancer a contribution to surgical decision making? Am J Surg (2000) 1.20
Follow-up of colorectal cancer patients after resection with curative intent-the GILDA trial. Surg Oncol (2004) 1.14
Guidelines for follow up after resection of colorectal cancer. Gut (2002) 1.13
Does methodic long-term follow-up affect survival after curative resection of colorectal carcinoma? Dis Colon Rectum (1993) 1.07
A simulation model for colorectal cancer screening: potential of stool tests with various performance characteristics compared with screening colonoscopy. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev (2005) 1.06
Accuracy of investigations for asymptomatic colorectal liver metastases. Dis Colon Rectum (2002) 1.03
Helical CT versus CT arterial portography in the detection of hepatic metastasis of colorectal carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol (1998) 1.02
Estimating the unknown parameters of the natural history of metachronous colorectal cancer using discrete-event simulation. Med Decis Making (2011) 1.00
The pattern of recurrent colorectal cancer in a prospective randomised study and the characteristics of diagnostic tests. Int J Colorectal Dis (1997) 0.97
The role of contrast-enhanced ultrasound for focal liver lesion detection: an overview. Ultrasound Med Biol (2007) 0.96
Pulmonary staging in colorectal cancer--is computerised tomography the answer? Ann R Coll Surg Engl (2005) 0.96
An interim analysis of recruitment to the COLOFOL trial. Colorectal Dis (2009) 0.93
Cost-effectiveness of hepatic metastasectomy in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma: a state-transition Monte Carlo decision analysis. Ann Surg (2003) 0.93
Accuracy of lung imaging in metastases with implications for the role of thoracoscopy. Ann Thorac Surg (1993) 0.92
Hepatic resection for metastatic disease. Can J Surg (1986) 0.90
Cost-effectiveness analysis of fecal occult blood screening for colorectal cancer. Int J Technol Assess Health Care (2004) 0.87
Cost-effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer: a simulation model. IMA J Math Appl Med Biol (1996) 0.84
Cost-effectiveness of two follow-up strategies for curative resection of colorectal cancer: comparative study using a Markov model. World J Surg (2004) 0.81
A simulation model for evaluating the medical and economic outcomes of screening strategies for colorectal cancer. Eur J Cancer Prev (2003) 0.80
Analysis of colorectal cancer screening regimens. Health Care Manag Sci (2001) 0.79
Follow-up in colorectal cancer patients: a cost-benefit analysis. Ann Surg Oncol (1996) 0.78
Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for traditional and novel measures. Epidemiology (2010) 14.07
Delivering affordable cancer care in high-income countries. Lancet Oncol (2011) 12.79
Bevacizumab in combination with oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFOX4) for previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer: results from the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Study E3200. J Clin Oncol (2007) 11.77
Phase II trial of cetuximab in patients with refractory colorectal cancer that expresses the epidermal growth factor receptor. J Clin Oncol (2004) 9.73
Expression of epiregulin and amphiregulin and K-ras mutation status predict disease control in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with cetuximab. J Clin Oncol (2007) 9.29
Phase II, randomized trial comparing bevacizumab plus fluorouracil (FU)/leucovorin (LV) with FU/LV alone in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol (2003) 8.95
Relationship of circulating tumor cells to tumor response, progression-free survival, and overall survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol (2008) 8.72
Variations in morbidity after radical prostatectomy. N Engl J Med (2002) 7.26
Prognostic model for predicting survival in men with hormone-refractory metastatic prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol (2003) 6.93
The surgical learning curve for prostate cancer control after radical prostatectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst (2007) 6.12
Comparison of 1,800 laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomies for single renal tumors. J Urol (2007) 5.24
Predicting the outcome of salvage radiation therapy for recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol (2007) 5.23
A nomogram for predicting the likelihood of additional nodal metastases in breast cancer patients with a positive sentinel node biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol (2003) 5.20
Utility of the SEER-Medicare data to identify chemotherapy use. Med Care (2002) 5.07
Variations in lung cancer risk among smokers. J Natl Cancer Inst (2003) 5.00
Postoperative nomogram predicting the 10-year probability of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol (2005) 4.89
American Society of Clinical Oncology Statement on minimum standards and exemplary attributes of clinical trial sites. J Clin Oncol (2008) 4.79
In Support of a Patient-Driven Initiative and Petition to Lower the High Price of Cancer Drugs. Mayo Clin Proc (2015) 4.70
Finasteride and high-grade prostate cancer in the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst (2007) 4.64
Preoperative nomogram predicting the 10-year probability of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst (2006) 4.14
Studying radiation therapy using SEER-Medicare-linked data. Med Care (2002) 4.13
Salvage radiotherapy for recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. JAMA (2004) 4.10
Defining biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: a proposal for a standardized definition. J Clin Oncol (2006) 4.05
Effects of pathologic stage on the learning curve for radical prostatectomy: evidence that recurrence in organ-confined cancer is largely related to inadequate surgical technique. Eur Urol (2008) 3.93
Nomogram for overall survival of patients with progressive metastatic prostate cancer after castration. J Clin Oncol (2002) 3.93
Prostate cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy for patients treated in the prostate-specific antigen era. J Clin Oncol (2009) 3.74
Against diagnosis. Ann Intern Med (2008) 3.69
Cancer control with radical prostatectomy alone in 1,000 consecutive patients. J Urol (2002) 3.61
Postoperative nomogram predicting risk of recurrence after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. J Clin Oncol (2006) 3.46
Mortality after prostate cancer treatment with radical prostatectomy, external-beam radiation therapy, or brachytherapy in men without comorbidity. Eur Urol (2013) 3.41
Global gene expression profiling of circulating tumor cells. Cancer Res (2005) 3.41
Phase I pharmacokinetic and biologic correlative study of mapatumumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody with agonist activity to tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand receptor-1. J Clin Oncol (2007) 3.37
Predicting 15-year prostate cancer specific mortality after radical prostatectomy. J Urol (2011) 3.36
Activity of sunitinib in patients with advanced neuroendocrine tumors. J Clin Oncol (2008) 3.34
Variations among individual surgeons in the rate of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol (2003) 3.27
Prediction of outcome in acute lower-gastrointestinal haemorrhage based on an artificial neural network: internal and external validation of a predictive model. Lancet (2003) 3.26
Location, extent and number of positive surgical margins do not improve accuracy of predicting prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol (2009) 3.24
Subtype specific prognostic nomogram for patients with primary liposarcoma of the retroperitoneum, extremity, or trunk. Ann Surg (2006) 3.23
American Society of Clinical Oncology perspective: Raising the bar for clinical trials by defining clinically meaningful outcomes. J Clin Oncol (2014) 3.20
Variations among high volume surgeons in the rate of complications after radical prostatectomy: further evidence that technique matters. J Urol (2005) 2.98
Colorectal screening after polypectomy: a national survey study of primary care physicians. Ann Intern Med (2006) 2.98
The relationship between prostate-specific antigen and prostate cancer risk: the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group. Clin Cancer Res (2010) 2.87
Prognostic nomogram for patients undergoing resection for adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. Ann Surg (2004) 2.84
Cost-effectiveness of computed tomography screening for lung cancer in the United States. J Thorac Oncol (2011) 2.83
An updated catalog of prostate cancer predictive tools. Cancer (2008) 2.82
Integration of gene expression profiling and clinical variables to predict prostate carcinoma recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Cancer (2005) 2.78
Benefits and harms of computed tomography lung cancer screening strategies: a comparative modeling study for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med (2013) 2.77
Patients' decision-making process regarding participation in phase I oncology research. J Clin Oncol (2006) 2.72
Correlation of proton MR spectroscopic imaging with gleason score based on step-section pathologic analysis after radical prostatectomy. Radiology (2005) 2.71
Do margins matter? The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol (2005) 2.69
Management of prostate cancer in older men: recommendations of a working group of the International Society of Geriatric Oncology. BJU Int (2010) 2.59
Surgeon experience is strongly associated with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy for all preoperative risk categories. J Urol (2008) 2.57
Do margins matter? The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol (2008) 2.57
International validation of a preoperative nomogram for prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol (2002) 2.51
Prediction of organ-confined prostate cancer: incremental value of MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging to staging nomograms. Radiology (2005) 2.49
Phase I trial of intravenous administration of PV701, an oncolytic virus, in patients with advanced solid cancers. J Clin Oncol (2002) 2.41
Phase I pharmacologic and biologic study of ramucirumab (IMC-1121B), a fully human immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2. J Clin Oncol (2010) 2.41
Centralization of cancer surgery: implications for patient access to optimal care. J Clin Oncol (2009) 2.40
The comparability of models for predicting the risk of a positive prostate biopsy with prostate-specific antigen alone: a systematic review. Eur Urol (2008) 2.39
Estimating long-term effectiveness of lung cancer screening in the Mayo CT screening study. Radiology (2008) 2.37
A postoperative prognostic nomogram predicting recurrence for patients with conventional clear cell renal cell carcinoma. J Urol (2005) 2.30
Prognostic nomogram for renal insufficiency after radical or partial nephrectomy. J Urol (2006) 2.30
Impact of reduced tobacco smoking on lung cancer mortality in the United States during 1975-2000. J Natl Cancer Inst (2012) 2.30
Survival among men with clinically localized prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy in the prostate specific antigen era. J Urol (2012) 2.24
Prospective multi-institutional study evaluating the performance of prostate cancer risk calculators. J Clin Oncol (2011) 2.21
Clinical benefits of a multivariate prediction model for bladder cancer: a decision analytic approach. Cancer (2009) 2.18
Meta-analysis: Its strengths and limitations. Cleve Clin J Med (2008) 2.15
Assessing individual risk for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol (2007) 2.13
Judging new markers by their ability to improve predictive accuracy. J Natl Cancer Inst (2003) 2.11
Reduced penile size and treatment regret in men with recurrent prostate cancer after surgery, radiotherapy plus androgen deprivation, or radiotherapy alone. Urology (2013) 2.04
Eligibility and outcomes reporting guidelines for clinical trials for patients in the state of a rising prostate-specific antigen: recommendations from the Prostate-Specific Antigen Working Group. J Clin Oncol (2004) 2.04
Trends in esophageal adenocarcinoma incidence and mortality. Cancer (2012) 2.03
Monotherapy for stage T1-T2 prostate cancer: radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, or permanent seed implantation. Radiother Oncol (2004) 2.01
Comparison of nomograms with other methods for predicting outcomes in prostate cancer: a critical analysis of the literature. Clin Cancer Res (2008) 1.96
A preoperative nomogram identifying decreased risk of positive pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer. J Urol (2003) 1.96
Prostate Specific Antigen Working Group guidelines on prostate specific antigen doubling time. J Urol (2008) 1.95
Effect of papillary and chromophobe cell type on disease-free survival after nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol (2004) 1.95
Association of K-ras mutational status and clinical outcomes in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer receiving panitumumab alone. Clin Colorectal Cancer (2008) 1.89
The continuum of care: a paradigm for the management of metastatic colorectal cancer. Oncologist (2007) 1.89
Comparisons of nomograms and urologists' predictions in prostate cancer. Semin Urol Oncol (2002) 1.88
The culture of faith and hope: patients' justifications for their high estimations of expected therapeutic benefit when enrolling in early phase oncology trials. Cancer (2010) 1.84
Survival after hepatic resection in metastatic colorectal cancer: a population-based study. Cancer (2007) 1.84
Correlates of colorectal cancer screening compliance and stage of adoption among siblings of individuals with early onset colorectal cancer. Health Psychol (2002) 1.84
High expression of the Met receptor in prostate cancer metastasis to bone. Urology (2002) 1.83
A nomogram that predicts the presence of sentinel node metastasis in melanoma with better discrimination than the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system. Ann Surg Oncol (2005) 1.83
Predicting 6-year mortality risk in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care (2008) 1.81
Performance of prostate cancer prevention trial risk calculator in a contemporary cohort screened for prostate cancer and diagnosed by extended prostate biopsy. J Urol (2009) 1.81
American Society of Clinical Oncology 2008 clinical practice guideline update: use of chemotherapy and radiation therapy protectants. J Clin Oncol (2008) 1.80
An externally validated model for predicting long-term survival after exercise treadmill testing in patients with suspected coronary artery disease and a normal electrocardiogram. Ann Intern Med (2007) 1.80
High radical prostatectomy surgical volume is related to lower radical prostatectomy total hospital charges. Eur Urol (2006) 1.76
Adjuvant weekly docetaxel for patients with high risk prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: a multi-institutional pilot study. J Urol (2007) 1.75
Initial biopsy outcome prediction--head-to-head comparison of a logistic regression-based nomogram versus artificial neural network. Eur Urol (2006) 1.73
Isolation and characterization of circulating tumor cells in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Clin Colorectal Cancer (2006) 1.72
Prostate cancer nomograms: an update. Eur Urol (2006) 1.71
The utility of magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for predicting insignificant prostate cancer: an initial analysis. BJU Int (2007) 1.71
Prognostic nomogram for sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Cancer (2008) 1.70
The risk of developing coronary artery disease or congestive heart failure, and overall mortality, in type 2 diabetic patients receiving rosiglitazone, pioglitazone, metformin, or sulfonylureas: a retrospective analysis. Acta Diabetol (2009) 1.69
Customized dose prescription for permanent prostate brachytherapy: insights from a multicenter analysis of dosimetry outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys (2007) 1.69