Literature DB >> 14610406

Time trends in clinical risk stratification for prostate cancer: implications for outcomes (data from CaPSURE).

Matthew R Cooperberg1, Deborah P Lubeck, Shilpa S Mehta, Peter R Carroll.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Many instruments designed to predict prostate cancer risk use a combination of clinical T stage, biopsy Gleason score and serum prostate specific antigen (PSA). We designed a study to characterize time trends in these parameters and their impact on patient risk stratification.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were abstracted from CaPSURE (Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urological Research Endeavor), a disease registry of 8,685 men with prostate cancer. The 6,260 men diagnosed since 1989 who had complete clinical information reported were categorized into low, intermediate or high risk groups based on established parameters for T stage, Gleason score and PSA.
RESULTS: Between 1989 to 1990 and 2001 to 2002 the proportion of patients presenting with high, intermediate and low risk disease changed from 40.9%, 28.0% and 31.2% to 14.8%, 37.5% and 47.7%, respectively (p <0.0001). The incidence of T1 tumors increased from 16.7% to 48.5% and that of T3-4 tumors decreased from 11.8% to 3.5%, respectively (p <0.0001). The incidence of Gleason 2 to 6 tumors decreased from 77.1% to 66.4%, while that of Gleason 7 tumors increased from 12.9% to 24.8%, respectively (p = 0.0030). PSA levels 10 ng/ml or less increased from 43.6% to 77.7%, respectively, while PSA 10 to 20 and greater than 20 ng/ml decreased accordingly (p <0.0001). These trends were mirrored in subset analysis of black patients.
CONCLUSIONS: A significant downward risk migration has occurred over time. Gleason score is now more likely and PSA less likely than previously to drive risk assignment. This shift is most likely attributable to changes in practice patterns with respect to screening and pathological grading. These changes should be considered when applying nomograms derived from earlier datasets to contemporary cases.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14610406     DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000095025.03331.c6

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


  82 in total

Review 1.  Evidence-based comparison of robotic and open radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  William T Lowrance; Tatum V Tarin; Shahrokh F Shariat
Journal:  ScientificWorldJournal       Date:  2010-11-16

2.  Impact of pathology review of stage and margin status of radical prostatectomy specimens (EORTC trial 22911).

Authors:  Theodorus H van der Kwast; Laurence Collette; Hein Van Poppel; Paul Van Cangh; Kris Vekemans; Luigi DaPozzo; Jean-François Bosset; Karl H Kurth; Fritz H Schröder; Michel Bolla
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2006-08-29       Impact factor: 4.064

3.  Magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Peter R Carroll; Fergus V Coakley; John Kurhanewicz
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2006

4.  A biopsy-integrated algorithm for determining Gleason 6 upgrading risk stratifies risk of active surveillance failure in prostate cancer.

Authors:  M L Blute; J M Shiau; M Truong; Fangfang Shi; E J Abel; T M Downs; D F Jarrard
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-09-15       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  Evolution of the clinical presentation of men undergoing radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  Phillip M Pierorazio; Ashley E Ross; Misop Han; Jonathan I Epstein; Alan W Partin; Edward M Schaeffer
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2011-08-22       Impact factor: 5.588

6.  Can 3T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging accurately detect prostate cancer extracapsular extension?

Authors:  Yannick Cerantola; Massimo Valerio; Aida Kawkabani Marchini; Jean-Yves Meuwly; Patrice Jichlinski
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2013 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 7.  Updated trends in imaging use in men diagnosed with prostate cancer.

Authors:  S P Porten; A Smith; A Y Odisho; M S Litwin; C S Saigal; P R Carroll; M R Cooperberg
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2014-05-13       Impact factor: 5.554

8.  National practice patterns and time trends in androgen ablation for localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Matthew R Cooperberg; Gary D Grossfeld; Deborah P Lubeck; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2003-07-02       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  Prostate cancer in elderly men.

Authors:  Anton Stangelberger; Matthias Waldert; Bob Djavan
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2008

10.  Prostate cancer risk assessment: choosing the sharpest tool in the shed.

Authors:  Matthew R Cooperberg
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2008-12-01       Impact factor: 6.860

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.