Literature DB >> 19389085

The probability of Gleason score upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy can be accurately predicted.

Umberto Capitanio1, Pierre I Karakiewicz, Claudio Jeldres, Alberto Briganti, Andrea Gallina, Nazareno Suardi, Andrea Cestari, Giorgio Guazzoni, Andrea Salonia, Francesco Montorsi.   

Abstract

The objective of this study was to test the external validity of a previously developed nomogram for the prediction of Gleason score upgrading (GSU) between biopsy and radical prostatectomy (RP). The study population consisted of 973 assessable patients treated with RP at a tertiary care institution. The accuracy of the nomogram was quantified with the receiver operating characteristics curve-derived area under the curve. The performance characteristics (predicted vs observed rate of GSU) were tested within a calibration plot. Overall, GSU was recorded in 39.8% (n = 387) of patients at RP. Of patients with GSU, 70 (18.1%), 23 (5.9%) and 32 (8.3%), respectively, had extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion and lymph node invasion. The accuracy of the nomogram was 74.9% (confidence interval 72.1-77.6%). The model tended to underestimate the observed rate of GSU and the discordance between the predicted and observed rate of GSU ranged from -7 to +10%. The current tool represents the most accurate method of predicting GSU between biopsy and RP. Nonetheless it is not perfect and its performance characteristics should be known prior to its use in clinical decision-making.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19389085     DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2009.02270.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Urol        ISSN: 0919-8172            Impact factor:   3.369


  8 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

Review 2.  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

3.  Development and multi-institutional validation of an upgrading risk tool for Gleason 6 prostate cancer.

Authors:  Matthew Truong; Jon A Slezak; Chee Paul Lin; Viacheslav Iremashvili; Martins Sado; Aria A Razmaria; Glen Leverson; Mark S Soloway; Scott E Eggener; E Jason Abel; Tracy M Downs; David F Jarrard
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2013-09-04       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  The effect of differing Gleason scores at biopsy on the odds of upgrading and the risk of death from prostate cancer.

Authors:  John G Phillips; Ayal A Aizer; Ming-Hui Chen; Danjie Zhang; Michelle S Hirsch; Jerome P Richie; Clare M Tempany; Stephen Williams; John V Hegde; Marian J Loffredo; Anthony V D'Amico
Journal:  Clin Genitourin Cancer       Date:  2014-03-03       Impact factor: 2.872

5.  Serum methionine metabolites are risk factors for metastatic prostate cancer progression.

Authors:  Sally Stabler; Tatsuki Koyama; Zhiguo Zhao; Magaly Martinez-Ferrer; Robert H Allen; Zigmund Luka; Lioudmila V Loukachevitch; Peter E Clark; Conrad Wagner; Neil A Bhowmick
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-08-10       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Development and External Validation of a Nomogram Predicting the Probability of Significant Gleason Sum Upgrading among Japanese Patients with Localized Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Takashi Imamoto; Takanobu Utsumi; Makoto Takano; Atsushi Komaru; Satoshi Fukasawa; Takahito Suyama; Koji Kawamura; Naoto Kamiya; Junichiro Miura; Hiroyoshi Suzuki; Takeshi Ueda; Tomohiko Ichikawa
Journal:  Prostate Cancer       Date:  2010-11-07

7.  Recent changes in the clinicopathologic features of Korean men with prostate cancer: a comparison with Western populations.

Authors:  Seok-Soo Byun; Sangchul Lee; Sang Eun Lee; Eunsik Lee; Seong Il Seo; Hyun Moo Lee; Han Yong Choi; Cheryn Song; Hanjong Ahn; Young Deuk Choi; Jin Seon Cho
Journal:  Yonsei Med J       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 2.759

8.  A nomogram to predict Gleason sum upgrading of clinically diagnosed localized prostate cancer among Chinese patients.

Authors:  Jin-You Wang; Yao Zhu; Chao-Fu Wang; Shi-Lin Zhang; Bo Dai; Ding-Wei Ye
Journal:  Chin J Cancer       Date:  2014-02-14
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.