Literature DB >> 18778352

The relationship between preoperative prostate-specific antigen and biopsy Gleason sum in men undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy: a novel assessment of traditional predictors of outcome.

Phillip Pierorazio1, Manisha Desai, Tara McCann, Mitchell Benson, James McKiernan.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level and Gleason sum, and its impact on biochemical failure (persistent PSA level of >0.2 ng/mL) after radical prostatectomy (RP), as the PSA, Gleason sum and clinical stage are commonly used preoperative predictors of outcome in men with localized prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Columbia Urologic Oncology Database was reviewed (1988-2006); 3460 had undergone RP. Patients who received neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapy or had incomplete data were excluded, yielding 1932 in the analysed sample. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) methods were used to assess differences in PSA level (on a log scale) among three different groups of patients, categorized by their Gleason sum scores, as <7, 7 and >7. To account for full penetrance of PSA screening, surgery before 1998 was considered as a potential confounder. ANOVA was used to determine whether the association of Gleason score and PSA levels differed before and after 1998. The effect of PSA level on biochemical failure was examined for variance among the three Gleason score groups using a Cox proportional hazards model with time to biochemical failure as the outcome, logPSA, Gleason sum (<7, 7 and >7), their interaction, and clinical stage as the predictors. Concordance indices (c-index) were calculated for the model with and without the interaction term between PSA and Gleason sum to determine its significance.
RESULTS: Of 1932 patients, 1190 (61.6%) had a Gleason sum of <7, 595 (30.8%) of 7 and 146 (7.6%) of >7. The median PSA level was 5.9, 6.1 and 7.8 ng/mL, respectively (P < 0.001). After adjusting for clinical stage, there was no significant interaction effect (P = 0.34) between Gleason sum and time of surgery on PSA level, implying that the relationship between Gleason sum and PSA levels has not changed over these two periods, despite changes in PSA screening. Results from the Cox model showed that PSA level, Gleason sum, their interaction term and clinical stage were significant predictors of biochemical failure. The c-index for the model without the interaction term was 0.70 and increased to 0.72 when including it, indicating an increase in the predictive ability of the model when including the interaction term.
CONCLUSION: PSA level and Gleason sum are highly interrelated variables, although they each carry additional information that significantly contributes to the prediction of biochemical failure. This study shows that, for an individual patient, the higher the initial PSA level the higher the risk of having poorly differentiated prostate cancer. Also, predictive models of biochemical failure can be improved by considering the interaction between PSA and Gleason sum.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18778352      PMCID: PMC5508732          DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.07952.x

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


  16 in total

1.  Validation of Partin tables for predicting pathological stage of clinically localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  M L Blute; E J Bergstralh; A W Partin; P C Walsh; M W Kattan; P T Scardino; J E Montie; J D Pearson; J M Slezak; H Zincke
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  A preoperative nomogram for disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  M W Kattan; J A Eastham; A M Stapleton; T M Wheeler; P T Scardino
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1998-05-20       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Prediction of prostate carcinoma stage by quantitative biopsy pathology.

Authors:  R W Veltri; M C Miller; A W Partin; E C Poole; G J O'Dowd
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2001-06-15       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  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

5.  Predicting risk of prostate specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy with the Center for Prostate Disease Research and Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor databases.

Authors:  J W Moul; R R Connelly; D P Lubeck; J J Bauer; L Sun; S C Flanders; G D Grossfeld; P R Carroll
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  An algorithm for predicting nonorgan confined prostate cancer using the results obtained from sextant core biopsies with prostate specific antigen level.

Authors:  R A Badalament; M C Miller; P A Peller; D C Young; D K Bahn; P Kochie; G J O'Dowd; R W Veltri
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1996-10       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  The role of transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy-based staging, preoperative serum prostate-specific antigen, and biopsy Gleason score in prediction of final pathologic diagnosis in prostate cancer.

Authors:  P Narayan; V Gajendran; S P Taylor; A Tewari; J C Presti; R Leidich; R Lo; K Palmer; K Shinohara; J T Spaulding
Journal:  Urology       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 2.649

8.  Correlation of clinical stage, serum prostatic acid phosphatase and preoperative Gleason grade with final pathological stage in 275 patients with clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate.

Authors:  J E Oesterling; C B Brendler; J I Epstein; A W Kimball; P C Walsh
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1987-07       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  Probability of biochemical recurrence by analysis of pathologic stage, Gleason score, and margin status for localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Masood A Khan; Alan W Partin; Leslie A Mangold; Jonathan I Epstein; Patrick C Walsh
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 2.649

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
  4 in total

1.  Impact of race on survival in patients with clinically nonmetastatic prostate cancer who deferred primary treatment.

Authors:  Michael Koscuiszka; David Hatcher; Paul J Christos; Amy E Rose; Holly S Greenwald; Ya-lin Chiu; Samir S Taneja; Madhu Mazumdar; Peng Lee; Iman Osman
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2011-10-21       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  One statistical test is sufficient for assessing new predictive markers.

Authors:  Andrew J Vickers; Angel M Cronin; Colin B Begg
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2011-01-28       Impact factor: 4.615

3.  Lactate dehydrogenase 5 isoenzyme overexpression defines resistance of prostate cancer to radiotherapy.

Authors:  M I Koukourakis; A Giatromanolaki; M Panteliadou; S E Pouliliou; P S Chondrou; S Mavropoulou; E Sivridis
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2014-04-08       Impact factor: 7.640

4.  68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT in primary staging of prostate carcinoma: preliminary results on differences between black and white South-Africans.

Authors:  Mike Sathekge; Thabo Lengana; Alex Maes; Mariza Vorster; JanRijn Zeevaart; Ismaheel Lawal; Thomas Ebenhan; Christophe Van de Wiele
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2017-11-04       Impact factor: 9.236

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.