Literature DB >> 25288575

Clinical predictors and recommendations for staging computed tomography scan among men with prostate cancer.

Rachel Risko1, Selin Merdan1, Paul R Womble2, Christine Barnett1, Zaojun Ye2, Susan M Linsell3, James E Montie2, David C Miller2, Brian T Denton4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To identify clinical variables associated with a positive computed tomography (CT) scan and estimate the performance of imaging recommendations in patients from a diverse sample of urology practices.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study comprised 2380 men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer seen at 28 practices in the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative from March 2012 through September 2013. Data included age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, Gleason score (GS), clinical T stage, total number of positive biopsy cores, whether or not the patient received a staging abdominal and/or pelvic CT scan, and CT scan result. We fit a multivariate logistic regression model to identify clinical variables associated with metastases detected by CT scan. We estimated the sensitivity and specificity of existing imaging recommendations.
RESULTS: Among 643 men (27.4%) who underwent a staging CT scan, 62 men (9.6%) had a positive study. In the multivariate analysis, PSA, GS, and clinical T stage were independently associated with the occurrence of a positive CT scan (all P values <.05). The American Urological Association's Best Practice Statements' recommendations for imaging when PSA level >20 ng/mL or GS ≥ 8 or locally advanced cancer had a sensitivity of 87.3% and specificity of 82.6%. Compared with current practice, implementing this recommendation in the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative population was estimated to result in approximately 0.5% of positive study results being missed, and 26.1% of fewer study results overall.
CONCLUSION: Successful implementation of CT imaging criterion of PSA level >20, GS ≥ 8, or clinical stage ≥ T3 would ensure that CT scans are performed for almost all men who would have positive study results while reducing the number of negative study results.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25288575      PMCID: PMC4743735          DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2014.07.051

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  12 in total

1.  Incidental findings in imaging research: evaluating incidence, benefit, and burden.

Authors:  Nicholas M Orme; Joel G Fletcher; Hassan A Siddiki; W Scott Harmsen; Megan M O'Byrne; John D Port; William J Tremaine; Henry C Pitot; Elizabeth G McFarland; Marguerite E Robinson; Barbara A Koenig; Bernard F King; Susan M Wolf
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2010-09-27

2.  Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

Authors:  Virginia A Moyer
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2012-07-17       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  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

4.  Overuse of imaging for staging low risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  Wesley W Choi; Stephen B Williams; Xiangmei Gu; Stuart R Lipsitz; Paul L Nguyen; Jim C Hu
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2011-03-17       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  A neural network predicts progression for men with gleason score 3+4 versus 4+3 tumors after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  M Han; P B Snow; J I Epstein; T Y Chan; K A Jones; P C Walsh; A W Partin
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2000-12-20       Impact factor: 2.649

6.  Correlation of pretherapy prostate cancer characteristics with histologic findings from pelvic lymphadenectomy specimens.

Authors:  T M Pisansky; H Zincke; V J Suman; D G Bostwick; J D Earle; J E Oesterling
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  1996-01-01       Impact factor: 7.038

7.  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

8.  Diagnostic CT scans: assessment of patient, physician, and radiologist awareness of radiation dose and possible risks.

Authors:  Christoph I Lee; Andrew H Haims; Edward P Monico; James A Brink; Howard P Forman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-03-18       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Anxiety level of early- and late-stage prostate cancer patients.

Authors:  Charles Johanes; Richard Arie Monoarfa; Raden Irawati Ismail; Rainy Umbas
Journal:  Prostate Int       Date:  2013-12-30

10.  Comparative effectiveness of radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy in prostate cancer: observational study of mortality outcomes.

Authors:  Prasanna Sooriakumaran; Tommy Nyberg; Olof Akre; Leif Haendler; Inge Heus; Mats Olsson; Stefan Carlsson; Monique J Roobol; Gunnar Steineck; Peter Wiklund
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2014-02-26
View more
  7 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

Review 2.  Novel Imaging in Detection of Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Clayton P Smith; Anna Laucis; Stephanie Harmon; Esther Mena; Liza Lindenberg; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2019-03-05       Impact factor: 5.075

3.  18F-Choline PET/mpMRI for Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: Part 2. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Authors:  Christine L Barnett; Matthew S Davenport; Jeffrey S Montgomery; Lakshmi Priya Kunju; Brian T Denton; Morand Piert
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2019-07-26       Impact factor: 10.057

4.  The GP Score, a Simplified Formula (Bioptic Gleason Score Times Prostate Specific Antigen) as a Predictor for Biochemical Failure after Prostatectomy in Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Norihito Soga; Yuji Ogura; Toshiaki Wakita; Takumi Kageyama; Jun Furusawa
Journal:  Curr Urol       Date:  2019-09-10

5.  Prospective monitoring of imaging guideline adherence by physicians in a surgical collaborative: comparison of statistical process control methods for detecting outlying performance.

Authors:  Michael Inadomi; Karandeep Singh; Ji Qi; Rodney Dunn; Susan Linsell; Brian Denton; Patrick Hurley; Eduardo Kleer; James Montie; Khurshid R Ghani
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2020-05-13       Impact factor: 2.796

Review 6.  The past, present, and future of urological quality improvement collaboratives.

Authors:  Adam C Reese; Serge Ginzburg
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2021-05

7.  A novel deep learning approach to extract Chinese clinical entities for lung cancer screening and staging.

Authors:  Huanyao Zhang; Danqing Hu; Huilong Duan; Shaolei Li; Nan Wu; Xudong Lu
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2021-07-30       Impact factor: 2.796

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.