Literature DB >> 15879786

The University of California, San Francisco Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score: a straightforward and reliable preoperative predictor of disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

Matthew R Cooperberg1, David J Pasta, Eric P Elkin, Mark S Litwin, David M Latini, Janeen Du Chane, Peter R Carroll.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Multivariate prognostic instruments aim to predict risk of recurrence among patients with localized prostate cancer. We devised a novel risk assessment tool which would be a strong predictor of outcome across various levels of risk, and which could be easily applied and intuitively understood.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied 1,439 men diagnosed between 1992 and 2001 who had undergone radical prostatectomy and were followed in the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE) database, a longitudinal, community based disease registry of patients with prostate cancer. Disease recurrence was defined as prostate specific antigen (PSA) 0.2 ng/ml or greater on 2 consecutive occasions following prostatectomy or a second cancer treatment more than 6 months after surgery. The University of California, San Francisco-Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (UCSF-CAPRA) score was developed using preoperative PSA, Gleason score, clinical T stage, biopsy results and age. The index was developed and validated using Cox proportional hazards and life table analyses.
RESULTS: A total of 210 patients (15%) had recurrence, 145 by PSA criteria and 65 by second treatment. Based on the results of the Cox analysis, points were assigned based on PSA (0 to 4 points), Gleason score (0 to 3), T stage (0 to 1), age (0 to 1) and percent of biopsy positive cores (0 to 1). The UCSF-CAPRA score range is 0 to 10, with roughly double the risk of recurrence for each 2-point increase in score. Recurrence-free survival at 5 years ranged from 85% for a UCSF-CAPRA score of 0 to 1 (95% CI 73%-92%) to 8% for a score of 7 to 10 (95% CI 0%-28%). The concordance index for the UCSF-CAPRA score was 0.66.
CONCLUSIONS: The UCSF-CAPRA score is a straightforward yet powerful preoperative risk assessment tool. It must be externally validated in future studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15879786      PMCID: PMC2948569          DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000158155.33890.e7

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


  20 in total

1.  Comparison of percentage of total prostate needle biopsy tissue with cancer to percentage of cores with cancer for predicting PSA recurrence after radical prostatectomy: results from the SEARCH database.

Authors:  Stephen J Freedland; William J Aronson; George S Csathy; Christopher J Kane; Christopher L Amling; Joseph C Presti; Frederick Dorey; Martha K Terris
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 2.649

2.  Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium.

Authors:  A W Partin; L A Mangold; D M Lamm; P C Walsh; J I Epstein; J D Pearson
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 2.649

3.  Percent prostate needle biopsy tissue with cancer is more predictive of biochemical failure or adverse pathology after radical prostatectomy than prostate specific antigen or Gleason score.

Authors:  Stephen J Freedland; George S Csathy; Frederick Dorey; William J Aronson
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  Comprehensive comparison of health-related quality of life after contemporary therapies for localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  John T Wei; Rodney L Dunn; Howard M Sandler; P William McLaughlin; James E Montie; Mark S Litwin; Linda Nyquist; Martin G Sanda
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2002-01-15       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Predicting disease recurrence in intermediate and high-risk patients undergoing radical prostatectomy using percent positive biopsies: results from CaPSURE.

Authors:  Gary D Grossfeld; David M Latini; Deborah P Lubeck; Jeanette M Broering; Yu Ping Li; Shilpa S Mehta; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 2.649

6.  Long-term cancer control of radical prostatectomy in men younger than 50 years of age: update 2003.

Authors:  Masood A Khan; Misop Han; Alan W Partin; Jonathan I Epstein; Patrick C Walsh
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 2.649

7.  A randomized trial comparing radical prostatectomy with watchful waiting in early prostate cancer.

Authors:  Lars Holmberg; Anna Bill-Axelson; Fred Helgesen; Jaakko O Salo; Per Folmerz; Michael Häggman; Swen-Olof Andersson; Anders Spångberg; Christer Busch; Steg Nordling; Juni Palmgren; Hans-Olov Adami; Jan-Erik Johansson; Bo Johan Norlén
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2002-09-12       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Assessment of the enhancement in predictive accuracy provided by systematic biopsy in predicting outcome for clinically localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Markus Graefen; Makoto Ohori; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Ilias Cagiannos; Peter G Hammerer; Alexander Haese; Andreas Erbersdobler; Rolf-Peter Henke; Hartwig Huland; Thomas M Wheeler; Kevin Slawin; Peter T Scardino; Michael W Kattan
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 9.  Cancer statistics, 2004.

Authors:  Ahmedin Jemal; Ram C Tiwari; Taylor Murray; Asma Ghafoor; Alicia Samuels; Elizabeth Ward; Eric J Feuer; Michael J Thun
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2004 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 508.702

Review 10.  The contemporary management of prostate cancer in the United States: lessons from the cancer of the prostate strategic urologic research endeavor (CapSURE), a national disease registry.

Authors:  Matthew R Cooperberg; Jeanette M Broering; Mark S Litwin; Deborah P Lubeck; Shilpa S Mehta; James M Henning; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 7.450

View more
  216 in total

1.  Use of tumor dynamics to clarify the observed variability among biochemical recurrence nomograms for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Guy Dimonte; E J Bergstralh; M E Bolander; R J Karnes; D J Tindall
Journal:  Prostate       Date:  2011-05-31       Impact factor: 4.104

Review 2.  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

3.  Should we abstain from Gleason score 2-4 in the diagnosis of prostate cancer? Results of a German multicentre study.

Authors:  Sabine Brookman-May; Matthias May; Wolf-Ferdinand Wieland; Steffen Lebentrau; Sven Gunia; Stefan Koch; Christian Gilfrich; Jan Roigas; Bernd Hoschke; Maximilian Burger
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2010-12-30       Impact factor: 4.226

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.  The utility of provincial AS guidelines.

Authors:  Munir Jamal
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2015 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.862

6.  External validation of the ProCaRS nomograms and comparison of existing risk-stratification tools for localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  David Tiberi; George Rodrigues; Tom Pickles; Jim Morris; Juanita Crook; Andre-Guy Martin; Fabio Cury; Charles Catton; Himu Lukka; Andrew Warner; Daniel Taussky
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2017 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.862

7.  Development of a stress response therapy targeting aggressive prostate cancer.

Authors:  Hao G Nguyen; Crystal S Conn; Yae Kye; Lingru Xue; Craig M Forester; Janet E Cowan; Andrew C Hsieh; John T Cunningham; Charles Truillet; Feven Tameire; Michael J Evans; Christopher P Evans; Joy C Yang; Byron Hann; Constantinos Koumenis; Peter Walter; Peter R Carroll; Davide Ruggero
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2018-05-02       Impact factor: 17.956

Review 8.  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

9.  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

Review 10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.