Literature DB >> 24006289

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

Matthew Truong1, 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.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Many patients with low-risk prostate cancer (PC) who are diagnosed with Gleason score 6 at biopsy are ultimately found to harbor higher grade PC (Gleason ≥ 7) at radical prostatectomy. This finding increases risk of recurrence and cancer-specific mortality. Validated clinical tools that are available preoperatively are needed to improve the ability to recognize likelihood of upgrading in patients with low-risk PC.
METHODS: More than 30 clinicopathologic parameters were assessed in consecutive patients with Gleason 6 PC upon biopsy who underwent radical prostatectomy. A nomogram for predicting upgrading (Gleason ≥ 7) on final pathology was generated using multivariable logistic regression in a development cohort of 431 patients. External validation was performed in 2 separate cohorts consisting of 1151 patients and 392 patients. Nomogram performance was assessed using receiver operating characteristic curves, calibration, and decision analysis.
RESULTS: On multivariable analysis, variables predicting upgrading were prostate-specific antigen density using ultrasound (odds ratio [OR] = 229, P = .003), obesity (OR = 1.90, P = .05), number of positive cores (OR = 1.23, P = .01), and maximum core involvement (OR = 0.02, P = .01). On internal validation, the bootstrap-corrected predictive accuracy was 0.753. External validation revealed a predictive accuracy of 0.677 and 0.672. The nomogram demonstrated excellent calibration in all 3 cohorts and decision curves demonstrated high net benefit across a wide range of threshold probabilities. The nomogram demonstrated areas under the curve of 0.597 to 0.672 for predicting upgrading in subsets of men with very low-risk PC who meet active surveillance criteria (all P < .001), allowing further risk stratification of these individuals.
CONCLUSIONS: A nomogram was developed and externally validated that uses preoperative clinical parameters and biopsy findings to predict the risk of pathological upgrading in Gleason 6 patients. This can be used to further inform patients with lower risk PC who are considering treatment or active surveillance.
Copyright © 2013 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  active surveillance; low-risk prostate cancer; prostate-specific antigen

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24006289      PMCID: PMC4880351          DOI: 10.1002/cncr.28303

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  29 in total

1.  Analysis of outcomes after radical prostatectomy in patients eligible for active surveillance (PRIAS).

Authors:  Albert El Hajj; Guillaume Ploussard; Alexandre de la Taille; Yves Allory; Dimitri Vordos; Andras Hoznek; Claude Clément Abbou; Laurent Salomon
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2012-06-21       Impact factor: 5.588

2.  Smaller prostate gland size and older age predict Gleason score upgrading.

Authors:  Boris Gershman; Douglas M Dahl; Aria F Olumi; Robert H Young; W Scott McDougal; Chin-Lee Wu
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2011-12-28       Impact factor: 3.498

3.  Prostate size as a predictor of Gleason score upgrading in patients with low risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  Judson D Davies; Monty A Aghazadeh; Sharon Phillips; Shady Salem; Sam S Chang; Peter E Clark; Michael S Cookson; Rodney Davis; S Duke Herrell; David F Penson; Joseph A Smith; Daniel A Barocas
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2011-10-19       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Tosoian; Bruce J Trock; Patricia Landis; Zhaoyong Feng; Jonathan I Epstein; Alan W Partin; Patrick C Walsh; H Ballentine Carter
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-04-04       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Prostate-specific antigen vs prostate-specific antigen density as a predictor of upgrading in men diagnosed with Gleason 6 prostate cancer by contemporary multicore prostate biopsy.

Authors:  Jong Jin Oh; Sung Kyu Hong; Jung Keun Lee; Byung Ki Lee; Sangchul Lee; Oh Sung Kwon; Seok-Soo Byun; Sang Eun Lee
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2012-04-30       Impact factor: 5.588

6.  Careful selection and close monitoring of low-risk prostate cancer patients on active surveillance minimizes the need for treatment.

Authors:  Mark S Soloway; Cynthia T Soloway; Ahmed Eldefrawy; Kristell Acosta; Bruce Kava; Murugesan Manoharan
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2010-08-20       Impact factor: 20.096

7.  Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models.

Authors:  Andrew J Vickers; Elena B Elkin
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2006 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.583

8.  Prostate size and risk of high-grade, advanced prostate cancer and biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy: a search database study.

Authors:  Stephen J Freedland; William B Isaacs; Elizabeth A Platz; Martha K Terris; William J Aronson; Christopher L Amling; Joseph C Presti; Christopher J Kane
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2005-10-20       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Clinical and pathologic predictors of Gleason sum upgrading in patients after radical prostatectomy: results from a single institution series.

Authors:  Derya Tilki; Boris Schlenker; Majnu John; Alexander Buchner; Peter Stanislaus; Christian Gratzke; Alexander Karl; Gerald Y Tan; Süleyman Ergün; Ashutosh K Tewari; Christian G Stief; Michael Seitz; Oliver Reich
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2009-10-17       Impact factor: 3.498

10.  A nomogram for predicting upgrading in patients with low- and intermediate-grade prostate cancer in the era of extended prostate sampling.

Authors:  Ayman S Moussa; Michael W Kattan; Ryan Berglund; Changhong Yu; Khaled Fareed; J Stephen Jones
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2009-08-13       Impact factor: 5.588

View more
  27 in total

1.  Can nomograms improve our ability to select candidates for active surveillance for prostate cancer?

Authors:  V Iremashvili; M Manoharan; D J Parekh; S Punnen
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2016-07-19       Impact factor: 5.554

2.  Prostate cancer: New nomogram predicts risk of Gleason upgrading.

Authors:  Sarah Payton
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2013-09-24       Impact factor: 14.432

3.  A biopsy-integrated algorithm for determining Gleason 6 upgrading risk stratifies risk of active surveillance failure in prostate cancer.

Authors:  M L Blute; J M Shiau; M Truong; Fangfang Shi; E J Abel; T M Downs; D F Jarrard
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-09-15       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

5.  Preoperative low serum testosterone is associated with high-grade prostate cancer and an increased Gleason score upgrading.

Authors:  A Pichon; Y Neuzillet; H Botto; J-P Raynaud; C Radulescu; V Molinié; J-M Herve; T Lebret
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2015-10-06       Impact factor: 5.554

Review 6.  Obesity and Prostate Cancer: A Focused Update on Active Surveillance, Race, and Molecular Subtyping.

Authors:  Adriana C Vidal; Stephen J Freedland
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2016-10-19       Impact factor: 20.096

7.  Urotensin II receptor on preoperative biopsy is associated with upstaging and upgrading in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Ottavio De Cobelli; Carlo Buonerba; Daniela Terracciano; Danilo Bottero; Giuseppe Lucarelli; Pierluigi Bove; Vincenzo Altieri; Ioman Coman; Sisto Perdonà; Gaetano Facchini; Massimiliano Berretta; Giuseppe Di Lorenzo; Paolo Grieco; Ettore Novellino; Renato Franco; Michele Caraglia; Claudia Manini; Vincenzo Mirone; Sabino De Placido; Guru Sonpavde; Matteo Ferro
Journal:  Future Oncol       Date:  2015-09-18       Impact factor: 3.404

8.  Adverse Pathologic Features at Radical Prostatectomy: Effect of Preoperative Risk on Oncologic Outcomes.

Authors:  Mariam Imnadze; Daniel D Sjoberg; Andrew J Vickers
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2015-04-23       Impact factor: 20.096

9.  Outcomes of Active Surveillance for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer in the Prospective, Multi-Institutional Canary PASS Cohort.

Authors:  Lisa F Newcomb; Ian M Thompson; Hilary D Boyer; James D Brooks; Peter R Carroll; Matthew R Cooperberg; Atreya Dash; William J Ellis; Ladan Fazli; Ziding Feng; Martin E Gleave; Priya Kunju; Raymond S Lance; Jesse K McKenney; Maxwell V Meng; Marlo M Nicolas; Martin G Sanda; Jeffry Simko; Alan So; Maria S Tretiakova; Dean A Troyer; Lawrence D True; Funda Vakar-Lopez; Jeff Virgin; Andrew A Wagner; John T Wei; Yingye Zheng; Peter S Nelson; Daniel W Lin
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2015-08-29       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Does extent of prostate-specific antigen fluctuation can predict Gleason score upgrading in low-risk prostate cancer patients?

Authors:  Nurullah Hamidi; Ali Fuat Atmaca; Abdullah Erdem Canda; Murat Keske; Arslan Ardıçoğlu
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2018-08-31
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.