Literature DB >> 20875091

Prediction of patient-specific risk and percentile cohort risk of pathological stage outcome using continuous prostate-specific antigen measurement, clinical stage and biopsy Gleason score.

Ying Huang1, Sumit Isharwal, Alexander Haese, Felix K H Chun, Danil V Makarov, Ziding Feng, Misop Han, Elizabeth Humphreys, Jonathan I Epstein, Alan W Partin, Robert W Veltri.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: • To develop a '2010 Partin Nomogram' with total prostate-specific antigen (tPSA) as a continuous biomarker, in light of the fact that the current 2007 Partin Tables restrict the application of tPSA as a non-continuous biomarker by creating 'groups' for risk stratification with tPSA levels (ng/mL) of 0-2.5, 2.6-4.0, 4.1-6.0, 6.1-10.0 and >10.0. • To use a 'predictiveness curve' to calculate the percentile risk of a patient among the cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS: • In all, 5730 and 1646 patients were treated with radical prostatectomy (without neoadjuvant therapy) between 2000 and 2005 at the Johns Hopkins Hospital (JHH) and University Clinic Hamburg-Eppendorf (UCHE), respectively. • Multinomial logistic regression analysis was performed to create a model for predicting the risk of the four non-ordered pathological stages, i.e. organ-confined disease (OC), extraprostatic extension (EPE), and seminal vesicle (SV+) and lymph node (LN+) involvement. • Patient-specific risk was modelled as a function of the B-spline basis of tPSA (with knots at the first, second and third quartiles), clinical stage (T1c, T2a, and T2b/T2c) and biopsy Gleason score (5-6, 3 + 4 = 7, 4 + 3 = 7, 8-10).
RESULTS: • The '2010 Partin Nomogram' calculates patient-specific absolute risk for all four pathological outcomes (OC, EPE, SV+, LN+) given a patient's preoperative clinical stage, tPSA and biopsy Gleason score. • While having similar performance in terms of calibration and discriminatory power, this new model provides a more accurate prediction of patients' pathological stage than the 2007 Partin Tables model. • The use of 'predictiveness curves' has also made it possible to obtain the percentile risk of a patient among the cohort and to gauge the impact of risk thresholds for making decisions regarding radical prostatectomy.
CONCLUSION: • The '2010 Partin Nomogram' using tPSA as a continuous biomarker together with the corresponding 'predictiveness curve' will help clinicians and patients to make improved treatment decisions.
© 2010 THE AUTHORS. BJU INTERNATIONAL © 2010 BJU INTERNATIONAL.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20875091      PMCID: PMC3082635          DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09692.x

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


  25 in total

1.  Results of radical prostatectomy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  G S Gerber; R A Thisted; P T Scardino; H G Frohmuller; F H Schroeder; D F Paulson; A W Middleton; D B Rukstalis; J A Smith; P F Schellhammer; M Ohori; G W Chodak
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1996-08-28       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  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

Review 3.  Long-term biochemical disease-free and cancer-specific survival following anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy. The 15-year Johns Hopkins experience.

Authors:  M Han; A W Partin; C R Pound; J I Epstein; P C Walsh
Journal:  Urol Clin North Am       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 2.241

4.  Evaluation of a nomogram used to predict the pathologic stage of clinically localized prostate carcinoma.

Authors:  M W Kattan; A M Stapleton; T M Wheeler; P T Scardino
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1997-02-01       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  The use of prostate specific antigen, clinical stage and Gleason score to predict pathological stage in men with localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  A W Partin; J Yoo; H B Carter; J D Pearson; D W Chan; J I Epstein; P C Walsh
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1993-07       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Predicting the presence and side of extracapsular extension: a nomogram for staging prostate cancer.

Authors:  Makoto Ohori; Michael W Kattan; Hideshige Koh; Norio Maru; Kevin M Slawin; Shahrokh Shariat; Masatoshi Muramoto; Victor E Reuter; Thomas M Wheeler; Peter T Scardino
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  A nomogram to predict seminal vesicle invasion by the extent and location of cancer in systematic biopsy results.

Authors:  Hideshige Koh; Michael W Kattan; Peter T Scardino; Kazuho Suyama; Norio Maru; Kevin Slawin; Thomas M Wheeler; Makoto Ohori
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Quantitative biopsy pathology for the prediction of pathologically organ-confined prostate carcinoma: a multiinstitutional validation study.

Authors:  Alexander Haese; Manisha Chaudhari; M Craig Miller; Jonathan I Epstein; Hartwig Huland; Juri Palisaar; Markus Graefen; Peter Hammerer; Edward C Poole; Gerard J O'Dowd; Alan W Partin; Robert W Veltri
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2003-02-15       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  A preoperative nomogram identifying decreased risk of positive pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer.

Authors:  Ilias Cagiannos; Pierre Karakiewicz; James A Eastham; Makato Ohori; Farhang Rabbani; Claudia Gerigk; Victor Reuter; Markus Graefen; Peter G Hammerer; Andreas Erbersdobler; Hartwig Huland; Patrick Kupelian; Eric Klein; David I Quinn; Susan M Henshall; John J Grygiel; Robert L Sutherland; Phillip D Stricker; Christopher G Morash; Peter T Scardino; Michael W Kattan
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Risk of early-onset prostate cancer in relation to germ line polymorphisms of the vitamin D receptor.

Authors:  Ingrid Oakley-Girvan; David Feldman; T Ross Eccleshall; Richard P Gallagher; Anna H Wu; Laurence N Kolonel; Jerry Halpern; Raymond R Balise; Dee W West; Ralph S Paffenbarger; Alice S Whittemore
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 4.254

View more
  12 in total

Review 1.  Nuclear morphometry, nucleomics and prostate cancer progression.

Authors:  Robert W Veltri; Christhunesa S Christudass; Sumit Isharwal
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2012-04-16       Impact factor: 3.285

2.  Added Value of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Clinical Nomograms for Predicting Adverse Pathology in Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Kareem N Rayn; Jonathan B Bloom; Samuel A Gold; Graham R Hale; Joseph A Baiocco; Sherif Mehralivand; Marcin Czarniecki; Vikram K Sabarwal; Vladimir Valera; Bradford J Wood; Maria J Merino; Peter Choyke; Baris Turkbey; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2018-05-29       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 3.  Imaging of distant metastases of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Filippo Pesapane; Marcin Czarniecki; Matteo Basilio Suter; Baris Turkbey; Geert Villeirs
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2018-09-14       Impact factor: 3.064

4.  The role of PSA density to predict a pathological tumour upgrade between needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy for low risk clinical prostate cancer in the modified Gleason system era.

Authors:  Stavros Sfoungaristos; Ioannis Katafigiotis; Petros Perimenis
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2013 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.862

5.  Multiple cores of Gleason score 6 correlate with favourable findings at radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Carla L Ellis; Patrick C Walsh; Alan W Partin; Jonathan I Epstein
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2013-01-25       Impact factor: 5.588

6.  An updated prostate cancer staging nomogram (Partin tables) based on cases from 2006 to 2011.

Authors:  John B Eifler; Zhaoyang Feng; Brian M Lin; Michael T Partin; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Misop Han; Jonathan I Epstein; Patrick C Walsh; Bruce J Trock; Alan W Partin
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2012-07-26       Impact factor: 5.588

7.  ERG rearrangement as a novel marker for predicting the extra-prostatic extension of clinically localised prostate cancer.

Authors:  L I Lu; Hao Zhang; Jun Pang; Guo-Liang Hou; Min-Hua Lu; Xin Gao
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2016-02-25       Impact factor: 2.967

8.  Predicting early outcomes in patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer using prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Dennie Meijer; Pim J van Leeuwen; Maarten L Donswijk; Thierry N Boellaard; Ivo G Schoots; Henk G van der Poel; Harry N Hendrikse; Daniela E Oprea-Lager; André N Vis
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2021-06-16       Impact factor: 5.969

9.  Models predicting survival to guide treatment decision-making in newly diagnosed primary non-metastatic prostate cancer: a systematic review.

Authors:  David Thurtle; Sabrina H Rossi; Brendan Berry; Paul Pharoah; Vincent J Gnanapragasam
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-06-22       Impact factor: 2.692

10.  Evaluation of prediction models for the staging of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Susie Boyce; Yue Fan; Ronald William Watson; Thomas Brendan Murphy
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2013-11-15       Impact factor: 2.796

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.