Literature DB >> 17572194

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.

Danil V Makarov1, Bruce J Trock, Elizabeth B Humphreys, Leslie A Mangold, Patrick C Walsh, Jonathan I Epstein, Alan W Partin.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To update the 2001 "Partin tables" with a contemporary patient cohort and revised variable categorization, correcting for the effects of stage migration.
METHODS: We analyzed 5730 men treated with prostatectomy (without neoadjuvant therapy) between 2000 and 2005 at the Johns Hopkins Hospital. Average age was 57 years. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the probability of organ-confined disease, extraprostatic extension, seminal vesicle involvement, or lymph node involvement. Predictor variables included preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level (0 to 2.5, 2.6 to 4.0, 4.1 to 6.0, 6.1 to 10.0, and greater than 10.0 ng/mL), clinical stage (T1c, T2a, and T2b/T2c), and biopsy Gleason score (5 to 6, 3 + 4 = 7, 4 + 3 = 7, or 8 to 10). Bootstrap resampling was used to generate 95% confidence intervals for predicted probabilities.
RESULTS: Seventy-seven percent of patients had T1c, 76% had Gleason score 5 to 6, 80% had a PSA level between 2.5 and 10.0 ng/mL, and 73% had organ-confined disease. Nomograms were developed for the predicted probability of pathologically organ-confined disease, extraprostatic extension, seminal vesicle invasion, or lymph node involvement. The risk of non-organ-confined disease increased with increases in any individual prognostic factor. The dramatic decrease in clinical stage T2c compared with the patient series used in the previous models resulted in T2b and T2c being combined as a single predictor in the nomogram.
CONCLUSIONS: These updated "Partin tables" were generated to reflect trends in presentation and pathologic stage for men diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer at our institution. Clinicians and patients can use these nomograms to help make important decisions regarding management of prostate cancer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17572194      PMCID: PMC1993240          DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2007.03.042

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  30 in total

1.  How well does the Partin nomogram predict pathological stage after radical prostatectomy in a community based population? Results of the cancer of the prostate strategic urological research endeavor.

Authors:  David F Penson; Gary D Grossfeld; Yu-Ping Li; James M Henning; Deborah P Lubeck; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 7.450

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.  Gleason score 7 prostate cancer on needle biopsy: is the prognostic difference in Gleason scores 4 + 3 and 3 + 4 independent of the number of involved cores?

Authors:  Danil V Makarov; Harriete Sanderson; Alan W Partin; Jonathan I Epstein
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  Age and PSA predict likelihood of organ-confined disease in men presenting with PSA less than 10 ng/mL: implications for screening.

Authors:  Michael Aleman; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Patrick Kupelian; Michael W Kattan; Markus Graefen; Ilias Cagiannos; James Eastham; Peter T Scardino; Hartwig Huland; Eric A Klein
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 2.649

5.  Predicting the presence and side of extracapsular extension: a nomogram for staging prostate cancer.

Authors:  Makoto Ohori; Michael W Kattan; Hideshige Koh; Norio Maru; Kevin M Slawin; Shahrokh Shariat; Masatoshi Muramoto; Victor E Reuter; Thomas M Wheeler; Peter T Scardino
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  An evaluation of the decreasing incidence of positive surgical margins in a large retropubic prostatectomy series.

Authors:  Misop Han; Alan W Partin; David Y Chan; Patrick C Walsh
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Effect of verification bias on screening for prostate cancer by measurement of prostate-specific antigen.

Authors:  Rinaa S Punglia; Anthony V D'Amico; William J Catalona; Kimberly A Roehl; Karen M Kuntz
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2003-07-24       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Counseling men with prostate cancer: a nomogram for predicting the presence of small, moderately differentiated, confined tumors.

Authors:  Michael W Kattan; James A Eastham; Thomas M Wheeler; Norio Maru; Peter T Scardino; Andreas Erbersdobler; Markus Graefen; Hartwig Huland; Hideshige Koh; Shahrokh F Shariat; Kevin M Slawin; Makoto Ohori
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 7.450

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

Authors:  Ilias Cagiannos; 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
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level < or =4.0 ng per milliliter.

Authors:  Ian M Thompson; Donna K Pauler; Phyllis J Goodman; Catherine M Tangen; M Scott Lucia; Howard L Parnes; Lori M Minasian; Leslie G Ford; Scott M Lippman; E David Crawford; John J Crowley; Charles A Coltman
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-05-27       Impact factor: 91.245

View more
  123 in total

1.  Transatlantic Consensus Group on active surveillance and focal therapy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Hashim U Ahmed; Oguz Akin; Jonathan A Coleman; Sarah Crane; Mark Emberton; Larry Goldenberg; Hedvig Hricak; Mike W Kattan; John Kurhanewicz; Caroline M Moore; Chris Parker; Thomas J Polascik; Peter Scardino; Nicholas van As; Arnauld Villers
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2011-11-11       Impact factor: 5.588

2.  The importance of combined radiation and endocrine therapy in locally advanced prostate cancer.

Authors:  Phillip J Gray; William U Shipley
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2011-12-26       Impact factor: 3.285

Review 3.  Nuclear morphometry, nucleomics and prostate cancer progression.

Authors:  Robert W Veltri; Christhunesa S Christudass; Sumit Isharwal
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2012-04-16       Impact factor: 3.285

Review 4.  [Current treatment of locally advanced and metastatic prostate cancer].

Authors:  Anton Ponholzer; Ferdinand Steinbacher; Stephan Madersbacher; Paul Schramek
Journal:  Wien Med Wochenschr       Date:  2011-08

Review 5.  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

6.  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

7.  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

8.  Radiation therapy in prostate cancer: a risk-adapted strategy.

Authors:  A J Hayden; C Catton; T Pickles
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 3.677

Review 9.  Lymphotropic nanoparticle-enhanced MRI in prostate cancer: value and therapeutic potential.

Authors:  Ansje S Fortuin; Robert Jan Smeenk; Hanneke J M Meijer; Alfred J Witjes; Jelle O Barentsz
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 10.  PET imaging for lymph node dissection in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Elena Incerti; Paola Mapelli; Luigi Gianolli; Maria Picchio
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-10-17       Impact factor: 4.226

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.