Literature DB >> 14532779

A preoperative nomogram identifying decreased risk of positive pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer.

Ilias Cagiannos1, Pierre Karakiewicz, James A Eastham, Makato Ohori, Farhang Rabbani, Claudia Gerigk, Victor Reuter, Markus Graefen, Peter G Hammerer, Andreas Erbersdobler, Hartwig Huland, Patrick Kupelian, Eric Klein, David I Quinn, Susan M Henshall, John J Grygiel, Robert L Sutherland, Phillip D Stricker, Christopher G Morash, Peter T Scardino, Michael W Kattan.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We developed a preoperative nomogram for prediction of lymph node metastases in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was a retrospective, nonrandomized analysis of 7,014 patients treated with radical prostatectomy at 6 institutions between 1985 and 2000. Exclusion criteria consisted of preoperative androgen ablation therapy, salvage radical prostatectomy and pretreatment prostate specific antigen (PSA) greater than 50 ng/ml. Preoperative predictors of lymph node metastases consisted of pretreatment PSA, clinical stage (1992 TNM) and biopsy Gleason sum. These predictors were used in logistic regression analysis based nomograms to predict the probability of lymph node metastases.
RESULTS: Overall 5,510 patients with complete clinical and pathological information were included in the study. Lymph nodes metastases were present in 206 patients (3.7%). Pretreatment PSA, biopsy Gleason sum, clinical stage and institution represented predictors of lymph node status (p <0.001). Bootstrap corrected predictive accuracy of the 3-variable nomogram (clinical stage, Gleason sum and PSA) was 0.76. Inclusion of a fourth variable, which accounts for institutional differences in lymph node metastases, yielded an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of 0.78. The negative predictive value of our nomograms was 0.99 when they predicted 3% or less chance of positive lymph nodes.
CONCLUSIONS: Using clinical information, we produced 2 calibrated and validated nomograms, which accurately predict pathologically negative lymph nodes in men with localized prostate cancer who are candidates for radical prostatectomy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14532779     DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000091805.98960.13

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  82 in total

Review 1.  The 'CaP Calculator': an online decision support tool for clinically localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Matthew S Katz; Jason A Efstathiou; Anthony V D'Amico; Michael W Kattan; Martin G Sanda; Paul L Nguyen; Matthew R Smith; Peter R Carroll; Anthony L Zietman
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2010-03-15       Impact factor: 5.588

2.  Should all men having a radical prostatectomy have a pelvic lymph node dissection? No.

Authors:  Firas Abdollah; Maxine Sun; Rodolphe Thuret; Pierre I Karakiewicz
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 1.862

3.  Why all prostate cancer surgery should include an adequate lymph node dissection.

Authors:  D Robert Siemens
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 4.  Predictive and prognostic models in radical prostatectomy candidates: a critical analysis of the literature.

Authors:  Giovanni Lughezzani; Alberto Briganti; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Michael W Kattan; Francesco Montorsi; Shahrokh F Shariat; Andrew J Vickers
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2010-08-06       Impact factor: 20.096

5.  Prediction of patient-specific risk and percentile cohort risk of pathological stage outcome using continuous prostate-specific antigen measurement, clinical stage and biopsy Gleason score.

Authors:  Ying Huang; Sumit Isharwal; Alexander Haese; Felix K H Chun; Danil V Makarov; Ziding Feng; Misop Han; Elizabeth Humphreys; Jonathan I Epstein; Alan W Partin; Robert W Veltri
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2010-09-28       Impact factor: 5.588

6.  Updated nomogram to predict pathologic stage of prostate cancer given prostate-specific antigen level, clinical stage, and biopsy Gleason score (Partin tables) based on cases from 2000 to 2005.

Authors:  Danil V Makarov; Bruce J Trock; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Leslie A Mangold; Patrick C Walsh; Jonathan I Epstein; Alan W Partin
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 2.649

7.  Is clinical stage T2c prostate cancer an intermediate- or high-risk disease?

Authors:  Zachary Klaassen; Abhay A Singh; Lauren E Howard; Zhaoyong Feng; Bruce Trock; Martha K Terris; William J Aronson; Matthew R Cooperberg; Christopher L Amling; Christopher J Kane; Alan Partin; Misop Han; Stephen J Freedland
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2014-12-09       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Microbiological evaluation of infected pelvic lymphocele after robotic prostatectomy: potential predictors for culture positivity and selection of the best empirical antimicrobial therapy.

Authors:  Alaa Hamada; Catalina Hwang; Jorge Fleisher; Ingolf Tuerk
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2017-04-24       Impact factor: 2.370

Review 9.  Critical review of prostate cancer predictive tools.

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

10.  Impact of routine use of surgical drains on incidence of complications with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  John E Musser; Melissa Assel; Giuliano B Guglielmetti; Prachee Pathak; Jonathan L Silberstein; Daniel D Sjoberg; Melanie Bernstein; Vincent P Laudone
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2014-07-24       Impact factor: 2.942

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.