Literature DB >> 16879673

Significant upgrading affects a third of men diagnosed with prostate cancer: predictive nomogram and internal validation.

Felix K-H Chun1, Alberto Briganti, Shahrokh F Shariat, Markus Graefen, Francesco Montorsi, Andreas Erbersdobler, Thomas Steuber, Andrea Salonia, Eike Currlin, Vincenzo Scattoni, Martin G Friedrich, Thorsten Schlomm, Alexander Haese, Uwe Michl, Renzo Colombo, Hans Heinzer, Luc Valiquette, Patrizio Rigatti, Claus G Roehrborn, Hartwig Huland, Pierre I Karakiewicz.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To explore the rate of significant upgrading from biopsy to radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens in a contemporary cohort, and to develop a prognostic model capable of predicting the probability of significant upgrading, as previous reports indicate that up to 43% of men with low-grade prostate cancer at biopsy will be diagnosed with high-grade cancer at RP. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study cohort comprised 4789 men (median age 63 years, range 39-82) treated with RP, with available clinical stage, prostate-specific antigen levels, biopsy and RP Gleason sum values. These variables were used as predictors in multivariate logistic regression models (LRMs) addressing the rate of significant Gleason sum upgrading, defined as a Gleason sum increase either from < or = 6 to > or = 7 or from 7 to > or = 8 between the biopsy and RP specimens. Regression coefficients were used to develop and validate (200 bootstrap re-samples) a nomogram predicting significant biopsy Gleason sum upgrading.
RESULTS: Significant biopsy Gleason sum upgrading was recorded in 1349 (28.2%) patients. In multivariate LRMs, all predictors were highly significant (all P < 0.001). The bootstrap-corrected accuracy of the nomogram predicting the probability of significant Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and RP specimens was 75.7%.
CONCLUSION: Our nomogram might prove highly useful when the possibility of a more aggressive Gleason variant could change the treatment options.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16879673     DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06262.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJU Int        ISSN: 1464-4096            Impact factor:   5.588


  21 in total

1.  Validation of Epstein criteria of insignificant prostate cancer in Middle East patients.

Authors:  Ihab A Hekal; Nasr A El-Tabey; Mohamed Adel Nabeeh; Ahmed El-Assmy; Mohamed Abd El-Hameed; Adel Nabeeh; Elhousseiny I Ibrahiem
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2009-11-10       Impact factor: 2.370

Review 2.  Prostate cancer nomograms: a review of their use in cancer detection and treatment.

Authors:  R J Caras; Joseph R Sterbis
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 3.092

3.  Predictors of Gleason Score (GS) upgrading on subsequent prostatectomy: a single Institution study in a cohort of patients with GS 6.

Authors:  Vikas Mehta; Kevin Rycyna; Bart M M Baesens; Güliz A Barkan; Gladell P Paner; Robert C Flanigan; Eva M Wojcik; Girish Venkataraman
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Pathol       Date:  2012-07-29

4.  Predicting the risk of harboring high-grade disease for patients diagnosed with prostate cancer scored as Gleason ≤ 6 on biopsy cores.

Authors:  Thomas Seisen; Françoise Roudot-Thoraval; Pierre Olivier Bosset; Aurélien Beaugerie; Yves Allory; Dimitri Vordos; Claude-Clément Abbou; Alexandre De La Taille; Laurent Salomon
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-07-02       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  Concordance of Gleason grading with three-dimensional ultrasound systematic biopsy and biopsy core pre-embedding.

Authors:  Anouk A M A van der Aa; Christophe K Mannaerts; Hans van der Linden; Maudy Gayet; Bart Ph Schrier; Massimo Mischi; Harrie P Beerlage; Hessel Wijkstra
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  Results of radical prostatectomy in newly diagnosed prostate cancer: long-term survival rates in locally advanced and high-risk cancers.

Authors:  Hendrik Isbarn; Hartwig Huland; Markus Graefen
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2013-07-22       Impact factor: 5.594

7.  Low-Risk Prostate Cancer and Tumor Upgrading in the Surgical Specimen: Analysis of Clinical Factors Predicting Tumor Upgrading in a Contemporary Series of Patients Who were Evaluated According to the Modified Gleason Score Grading System.

Authors:  Antonio B Porcaro; Salvatore Siracusano; Nicolò de Luyk; Paolo Corsi; Marco Sebben; Alessandro Tafuri; Daniele Mattevi; Leonardo Bizzotto; Irene Tamanini; Maria A Cerruto; Guido Martignoni; Matteo Brunelli; Walter Artibani
Journal:  Curr Urol       Date:  2017-07-30

Review 8.  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

9.  Prostate cancer: Interpreting cost-utility analysis of prostate cancer treatment.

Authors:  James B Yu
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2013-02-12       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 10.  The role of endorectal coil MRI in preoperative staging and decision-making for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Timothy A Masterson; Karim Touijer
Journal:  MAGMA       Date:  2008-08-27       Impact factor: 2.310

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.