OBJECTIVE: To perform a decision curve analysis (DCA) to compare the Partin Tables 1997, 2001, and 2007 for their clinical applicability. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Clinical and pathologic data of 687 consecutive patients treated with open radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer between 2003 and 2008 at a single institution were used. DCA quantified the net benefit relating to specific threshold probabilities of extraprostatic extension (EPE), seminal vesicle involvement (SVI), and lymph node involvement (LNI). RESULTS: Overall, EPE, SVI, and LNI were recorded in 17.8, 6.0, and 1.2%, respectively. For EPE predictions, the DCA favored the 2007 version vs. 1997 for SVI vs. none of the versions for LNI. CONCLUSIONS: DCA indicate that for very low prevalence conditions such as LNI (1.2%), decision models are not useful. For low prevalence rates such as SVI, the use of different versions of the Partin Tables does not translate into meaningful net gains differences. Finally, for intermediate prevalence conditions such as EPE (18%), despite apparent performance differences, the net benefit differences were also marginal. In consequence, the current analysis could not confirm an important benefit from the use of the Partin Tables and it could not identify a clearly better version of any of the 3 available iterations.
OBJECTIVE: To perform a decision curve analysis (DCA) to compare the Partin Tables 1997, 2001, and 2007 for their clinical applicability. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Clinical and pathologic data of 687 consecutive patients treated with open radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer between 2003 and 2008 at a single institution were used. DCA quantified the net benefit relating to specific threshold probabilities of extraprostatic extension (EPE), seminal vesicle involvement (SVI), and lymph node involvement (LNI). RESULTS: Overall, EPE, SVI, and LNI were recorded in 17.8, 6.0, and 1.2%, respectively. For EPE predictions, the DCA favored the 2007 version vs. 1997 for SVI vs. none of the versions for LNI. CONCLUSIONS:DCA indicate that for very low prevalence conditions such as LNI (1.2%), decision models are not useful. For low prevalence rates such as SVI, the use of different versions of the Partin Tables does not translate into meaningful net gains differences. Finally, for intermediate prevalence conditions such as EPE (18%), despite apparent performance differences, the net benefit differences were also marginal. In consequence, the current analysis could not confirm an important benefit from the use of the Partin Tables and it could not identify a clearly better version of any of the 3 available iterations.