Literature DB >> 19875227

The Epstein criteria predict for organ-confined but not insignificant disease and a high likelihood of cure at radical prostatectomy.

Michael C Lee1, Fei Dong, Andrew J Stephenson, J Stephen Jones, Cristina Magi-Galluzzi, Eric A Klein.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Few reports attempt to validate the role of Epstein criteria in selecting patients for an active surveillance protocol.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the performance of the Epstein biopsy criteria for predicting pathologic end points and biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS) in men with early stage prostate cancer (PCa) treated by radical prostatectomy (RP). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Between October 1999 and January 2007, 746 consecutive patients were biopsied, and then underwent RP at our tertiary care institution. Two hundred sixty-eight patients met the entry criteria of Gleason 6 disease only on initial biopsy with complete pathologic information. MEASUREMENTS: Primary end point was insignificant disease. Insignificant disease was defined using a classical (organ-confined, Gleason score <6, and tumor volume <0.5 cm(3)) and more liberal (organ-confined, Gleason <6 tumor of any volume) formulation. Secondary end points included organ-confined disease and bRFS. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: One hundred thirty-six men (51%) met the Epstein biopsy criteria, and 167 (62%) had organ-confined cancer. Insignificant disease by the classical and liberal definitions was present in 68 (25%) and 92 (34%) patients, respectively. Cases meeting Epstein biopsy criteria were more likely to have insignificant disease by either definition (p<0.001) and more likely to have organ-confined tumors (p<0.001). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) varied widely among the end points, with sensitivity (74%) and NPV (86%) best for the classical definition of insignificant disease and specificity (74%) and PPV (92%) best for organ-confined disease. The estimated 5-yr bRFS was 100% for those meeting Epstein biopsy criteria compared to 83% for those not meeting these criteria.
CONCLUSIONS: The Epstein biopsy criteria predict for a high likelihood of organ-confined disease and the absence of biochemical failure up to 5 yr after RP. These criteria are insufficiently robust to predict the presence of biologically insignificant disease. Copyright 2009 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19875227     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.10.025

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  26 in total

1.  Validation of revised Epstein's criteria for insignificant prostate cancer prediction in a Greek subpopulation.

Authors:  Κ Chondros; Ν Karpathakis; Ι Heretis; Ε Mavromanolakis; N Chondros; F Sofras; C Mamoulakis
Journal:  Hippokratia       Date:  2015 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 0.471

Review 2.  Biomarker research in prostate cancer--towards utility, not futility.

Authors:  Sheng Fei Oon; Stephen R Pennington; John M Fitzpatrick; R William G Watson
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 14.432

3.  Insignificant disease among men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  Sung Kyu Hong; Emily Vertosick; Daniel D Sjoberg; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-09-27       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 4.  Prostate Biopsy in Active Surveillance Protocols: Immediate Re-biopsy and Timing of Subsequent Biopsies.

Authors:  Jonathan H Wang; Tracy M Downs; E Jason Abel; Kyle A Richards; David F Jarrard
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 5.  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

6.  The Efficacy of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted Biopsy in Risk Classification for Patients with Prostate Cancer on Active Surveillance.

Authors:  Pedro Recabal; Melissa Assel; Daniel D Sjoberg; Daniel Lee; Vincent P Laudone; Karim Touijer; James A Eastham; Hebert A Vargas; Jonathan Coleman; Behfar Ehdaie
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2016-02-23       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Watchful waiting and active surveillance approach in patients with low risk localized prostatic cancer: an experience of out-patients clinic with 12-year follow-up.

Authors:  Sergey Kravchick; Ronit Peled; Shmuel Cytron
Journal:  Pathol Oncol Res       Date:  2011-06-08       Impact factor: 3.201

8.  The role of MRI-targeted and confirmatory biopsies for cancer upstaging at selection in patients considered for active surveillance for clinically low-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  François Marliere; Philippe Puech; Ahmed Benkirane; Arnauld Villers; Laurent Lemaitre; Xavier Leroy; Nacim Betrouni; Adil Ouzzane
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-05-12       Impact factor: 4.226

9.  The effect of urologist experience on choosing active surveillance for prostate cancer.

Authors:  William G Chu; Brian J Kim; Jeff Slezak; Teresa N Harrison; Joy Gelfond; Steven J Jacobsen; Gary W Chien
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2015-03-12       Impact factor: 4.226

10.  Correlation of magnetic resonance imaging tumor volume with histopathology.

Authors:  Baris Turkbey; Haresh Mani; Omer Aras; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Vijay Shah; Marcelino Bernardo; Thomas Pohida; Dagane Daar; Compton Benjamin; Yolanda L McKinney; W Marston Linehan; Bradford J Wood; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2012-08-15       Impact factor: 7.450

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.