Literature DB >> 18553365

Critical assessment of tools to predict clinically insignificant prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy in contemporary men.

Felix K-H Chun1, Alexander Haese, Sascha A Ahyai, Jochen Walz, Nazareno Suardi, Umberto Capitanio, Markus Graefen, Andreas Erbersdobler, Hartwig Huland, Pierre I Karakiewicz.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Overtreatment of prostate cancer (PCa) is a concern, especially in patients who might qualify for the diagnosis of insignificant prostate cancer (IPCa). The ability to identify IPCa prior to definitive therapy was tested.
METHODS: In a cohort of 1132 men a nomogram was developed to predict the probability of IPCa. Predictors consisted of prostate-specific antigen (PSA), clinical stage, biopsy Gleason sum, core cancer length and percentage of positive biopsy cores (percent positive cores). IPCa was defined as organ-confined PCa (OC) with tumor volume (TV) <0.5 cc and without Gleason 4 or 5 patterns. Finally, an external validation of the most accurate IPCa nomogram was performed in the same group.
RESULTS: IPCa was pathologically confirmed in 65 (5.7%) men. The 200 bootstrap-corrected predictive accuracy of the new nomogram was 90% versus 81% for the older nomogram. However, in cutoff-based analyses of patients who were qualified by our and the older nomograms as high probability for IPCa, respectively 63% and 45% harbored aggressive PCa variants at radical prostatectomy (Gleason score 7-10, ECE, SVI, and/or LNI).
CONCLUSIONS: Despite a high accuracy, currently available models for prediction of IPCa are incorrect in 10% to 20% of predictions. The rate of misclassification is even further inflated when specific cutoffs are used. As a consequence, extreme caution is advised when statistical tools are used to assign the diagnosis of IPCa. 2008 American Cancer Society

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18553365     DOI: 10.1002/cncr.23610

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  27 in total

1.  Low-risk prostate cancer and low testosterone: what are the acceptable alternatives?

Authors:  Mark Soloway
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 3.092

2.  [Active surveillance of low risk prostate cancer].

Authors:  K Lellig; B Beyer; M Graefen; D Zaak; C Stief
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 0.639

3.  Prostate cancer screening: Canadian guidelines 2011.

Authors:  Jonathan I Izawa; Laurence Klotz; D Robert Siemens; Wassim Kassouf; Alan So; John Jordan; Michael Chetner; Alla E Iansavichene
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 1.862

4.  Prostate imaging--the future is now: current concepts and future potentials.

Authors:  Felix K-H Chun; Thomas R W Herrmann
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  Evaluation of models predicting insignificant prostate cancer to select men for active surveillance of prostate cancer.

Authors:  L M Wong; D E Neal; A Finelli; S Davis; C Bonner; J Kapoor; J Trachtenberg; B Thomas; C M Hovens; A J Costello; N M Corcoran
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2015-02-10       Impact factor: 5.554

Review 6.  Formalized prediction of clinically significant prostate cancer: is it possible?

Authors:  Carvell T Nguyen; Michael W Kattan
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2012-02-27       Impact factor: 3.285

Review 7.  Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Stacy Loeb; Marc A Bjurlin; Joseph Nicholson; Teuvo L Tammela; David F Penson; H Ballentine Carter; Peter Carroll; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2014-01-09       Impact factor: 20.096

8.  Safe-R: a novel score, accounting for oncological safe nerve-sparing at radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Andreas Becker; Carolina Coelius; Meike Adam; Pierre Tennstedt; Luis Kluth; Thomas Steuber; Hans Heinzer; Markus Graefen; Thorsten Schlomm; Uwe Michl
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-03-26       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 9.  Active surveillance in prostate cancer: the need to standardize.

Authors:  Xavier Filella; Juan Alcover; Rafael Molina
Journal:  Tumour Biol       Date:  2011-05-28

10.  Predictive value of four kallikrein markers for pathologically insignificant compared with aggressive prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens: results from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer section Rotterdam.

Authors:  Sigrid Carlsson; Alexandra Maschino; Fritz Schröder; Chris Bangma; Ewout W Steyerberg; Theo van der Kwast; Geert van Leenders; Andrew Vickers; Hans Lilja; Monique J Roobol
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2013-05-02       Impact factor: 20.096

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.