Literature DB >> 20034730

When to perform bone scan in patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer: external validation of the currently available guidelines and proposal of a novel risk stratification tool.

Alberto Briganti1, Niccolò Passoni, Matteo Ferrari, Umberto Capitanio, Nazareno Suardi, Andrea Gallina, Luigi Filippo Da Pozzo, Maria Picchio, Valerio Di Girolamo, Andrea Salonia, Liugi Gianolli, Cristina Messa, Patrizio Rigatti, Francesco Montorsi.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Several guidelines have indicated that in patients with well-differentiated or moderately well-differentiated prostate cancer (PCa), a staging bone scan may be omitted. However, the guidelines recommendations have not yet been externally validated.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to externally validate the available guidelines regarding the need for a staging bone scan in patients with newly diagnosed PCa. Moreover, we developed a novel risk stratification tool aimed at improving the accuracy of these guidelines. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The study included 853 consecutive patients diagnosed with PCa between January 2003 and June 2008 at a single centre. All patients underwent bone scan using technetium Tc 99m methylene diphosphonate at diagnosis. MEASUREMENTS: The area under the curve (AUC) of the criteria suggested by the guidelines (European Association of Urology, American Urological Association, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and American Joint Committee on Cancer) to perform a baseline bone scan was assessed and compared with the accuracy of a classification and regression tree (CART) including prostate-specific antigen (PSA), clinical stage, and biopsy Gleason sum as covariates. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The AUC of the guidelines ranged between 79.7% and 82.6%. However, the novel CART model, which stratified patients into low risk (biopsy Gleason ≤7, cT1-T3, and PSA <10 ng/ml), intermediate risk (biopsy Gleason ≤7, cT2/T3, and PSA >10 ng/ml), and high risk (biopsy Gleason >7) was significantly more accurate (AUC: 88.0%) than all the guidelines (all p≤0.002). The limitation of this study resides in its retrospective design. Moreover, the proposed risk stratification tool can be considered only for patients who are candidates for radical prostatectomy until validated in other clinical settings.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study aimed at externally validating the available guidelines addressing the need for staging baseline bone scans in PCa patients. All guidelines showed high accuracy. However, their accuracy was significantly lower compared with the accuracy of the novel risk stratification tool. According to this tool, staging bone scans might be considered only for patients with a biopsy Gleason score >7 or with a PSA >10 ng/ml and palpable disease (cT2/T3) prior to treatment. However, before recommending its use in clinical practice, our model needs to be externally validated.
Copyright © 2009 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 20034730     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.12.023

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


  38 in total

1.  Is there still a role for computed tomography and bone scintigraphy in prostate cancer staging? An analysis from the EUREKA-1 database.

Authors:  D Gabriele; D Collura; M Oderda; I Stura; C Fiorito; F Porpiglia; C Terrone; M Zacchero; C Guiot; P Gabriele
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2015-08-15       Impact factor: 4.226

2.  Diagnostic test accuracy study of 18F-sodium fluoride PET/CT, 99mTc-labelled diphosphonate SPECT/CT, and planar bone scintigraphy for diagnosis of bone metastases in newly diagnosed, high-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  Randi F Fonager; Helle D Zacho; Niels C Langkilde; Joan Fledelius; June A Ejlersen; Christian Haarmark; Helle W Hendel; Mine Benedicte Lange; Mads R Jochumsen; Jesper C Mortensen; Lars J Petersen
Journal:  Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2017-11-01

Review 3.  Imaging and evaluation of patients with high-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  Marc A Bjurlin; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Luis S Beltran; Roy A Raad; Samir S Taneja
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2015-10-20       Impact factor: 14.432

4.  Prostate cancer: Better use of bone scans in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Steven M Larson
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2014-11-11       Impact factor: 14.432

5.  Impact of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET staging on clinical decision-making in patients with intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  Daniela A Ferraro; Helena I Garcia Schüler; Urs J Muehlematter; Daniel Eberli; Julian Müller; Alexander Müller; Roger Gablinger; Helmut Kranzbühler; Aurelius Omlin; Philipp A Kaufmann; Thomas Hermanns; Irene A Burger
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2019-12-04       Impact factor: 9.236

6.  Changing the referral criteria for bone scan in newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients.

Authors:  C McArthur; G McLaughlin; R N Meddings
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-02-08       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Toward better use of bone scans among men with early-stage prostate cancer.

Authors:  Selin Merdan; Paul R Womble; David C Miller; Christine Barnett; Zaojun Ye; Susan M Linsell; James E Montie; Brian T Denton
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2014-08-02       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 8.  Updated trends in imaging use in men diagnosed with prostate cancer.

Authors:  S P Porten; A Smith; A Y Odisho; M S Litwin; C S Saigal; P R Carroll; M R Cooperberg
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2014-05-13       Impact factor: 5.554

Review 9.  Diagnostic imaging to detect and evaluate response to therapy in bone metastases from prostate cancer: current modalities and new horizons.

Authors:  Laura Evangelista; Francesco Bertoldo; Francesco Boccardo; Giario Conti; Ilario Menchi; Francesco Mungai; Umberto Ricardi; Emilio Bombardieri
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2016-03-09       Impact factor: 9.236

10.  Application of bone scans for prostate cancer staging: Which guideline shows better result?

Authors:  Ari Chong; Insang Hwang; Jung-Min Ha; Seong Hyeon Yu; Eu Chang Hwang; Ho Song Yu; Sun Ouck Kim; Seung-Il Jung; Taek Won Kang; Dong Deuk Kwon; Kwangsung Park
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 1.862

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.