PURPOSE: We prospectively validate an algorithm to predict pelvic lymph node metastasis in patients with clinically localized prostatic carcinoma. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 293 patients with prostatic cancer were identified before pelvic lymph node dissection according to an algorithm developed with the classification and regression tree analysis as high-greater than 3 sextant biopsies containing any Gleason grade 4 or 5 cancer, intermediate-at least 1 biopsy dominated by Gleason grade 4 or 5 cancer but not high risk and low risk-all other patients. Observed and predicted frequencies of pelvic lymph node metastasis were compared. RESULTS: The observed frequencies of lymph node metastasis were remarkably similar to the predicted frequencies, including 2.8% versus 2.2% in 85.7% of patients in the low risk group, 16.7% versus 19.4% in 10.2% intermediate and 41.7% versus 45.5% in 4.1% high, respectively. If patients in the low risk group were considered to have node negative disease the specificity and negative predictive value of the algorithm were 88.4% and 97.2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our algorithm is valid as a simple and accurate tool for the prediction of pelvic lymph node metastasis in patients with clinically localized prostatic cancer. Those 85.7% of patients classified by the algorithm to have a low risk of lymphatic spread should not undergo pelvic lymph node dissection before definitive local treatment.
PURPOSE: We prospectively validate an algorithm to predict pelvic lymph node metastasis in patients with clinically localized prostatic carcinoma. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 293 patients with prostatic cancer were identified before pelvic lymph node dissection according to an algorithm developed with the classification and regression tree analysis as high-greater than 3 sextant biopsies containing any Gleason grade 4 or 5 cancer, intermediate-at least 1 biopsy dominated by Gleason grade 4 or 5 cancer but not high risk and low risk-all other patients. Observed and predicted frequencies of pelvic lymph node metastasis were compared. RESULTS: The observed frequencies of lymph node metastasis were remarkably similar to the predicted frequencies, including 2.8% versus 2.2% in 85.7% of patients in the low risk group, 16.7% versus 19.4% in 10.2% intermediate and 41.7% versus 45.5% in 4.1% high, respectively. If patients in the low risk group were considered to have node negative disease the specificity and negative predictive value of the algorithm were 88.4% and 97.2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our algorithm is valid as a simple and accurate tool for the prediction of pelvic lymph node metastasis in patients with clinically localized prostatic cancer. Those 85.7% of patients classified by the algorithm to have a low risk of lymphatic spread should not undergo pelvic lymph node dissection before definitive local treatment.
Authors: P G Hammerer; H Augustin; J Blonski; M Graefen; A Haese; A Erbersdobler; F Daghofer; H Huland Journal: Urologe A Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: M Schenck; C Boergermann; F vom Dorp; Y Busch; M Groneberg; B Wilker; S Keitsch; S Moyrer; K W Schmid; M Stuschke; H Ruebben; E Gulbins Journal: Urologe A Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Felix K-H Chun; Markus Graefen; Mario Zacharias; Alexander Haese; Thomas Steuber; Thorsten Schlomm; Jochen Walz; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Hartwig Huland Journal: World J Urol Date: 2006-02-28 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Jarrod B Adkison; Derek R McHaffie; Søren M Bentzen; Rakesh R Patel; Deepak Khuntia; Daniel G Petereit; Theodore S Hong; Wolfgang Tomé; Mark A Ritter Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-12-14 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Shahrokh F Shariat; Michael W Kattan; Andrew J Vickers; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Peter T Scardino Journal: Future Oncol Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 3.404