D Gabriele1, D Collura2, M Oderda3, I Stura4, C Fiorito3, F Porpiglia5, C Terrone6, M Zacchero6, C Guiot4, P Gabriele7. 1. Human Physiology Section, Neuroscience Department, University of Torino, Corso Raffaello 30, 10125, Turin, Italy. gabrielepda@alice.it. 2. Urology Division, San Giovanni Bosco Hospital, Turin, Italy. 3. Urology Division, Città della Salute e della Scienza Hospital, University of Torino, Turin, Italy. 4. Human Physiology Section, Neuroscience Department, University of Torino, Corso Raffaello 30, 10125, Turin, Italy. 5. Urology Division, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Torino, Orbassano, Italy. 6. Urology Division, University of Eastern Piedmont, Novara, Italy. 7. Radiation Oncology Division, FPO-IRCCS Cancer Center of Candiolo, Candiolo, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: According to the current guidelines, computed tomography (CT) and bone scintigraphy (BS) are optional in intermediate-risk and recommended in high-risk prostate cancer (PCa). We wonder whether it is time for these examinations to be dismissed, evaluating their staging accuracy in a large cohort of radical prostatectomy (RP) patients. METHODS: To evaluate the ability of CT to predict lymph node involvement (LNI), we included 1091 patients treated with RP and pelvic lymph node dissection, previously staged with abdomino-pelvic CT. As for bone metastases, we included 1145 PCa patients deemed fit for surgery, previously staged with Tc-99m methylene diphosphonate planar BS. RESULTS: CT scan showed a sensitivity and specificity in predicting LNI of 8.8 and 98 %; subgroup analysis disclosed a significant association only for the high-risk subgroup of 334 patients (P 0.009) with a sensitivity of 11.8 % and positive predictive value (PPV) of 44.4 %. However, logistic multivariate regression analysis including preoperative risk factors excluded any additional predictive ability of CT even in the high-risk group (P 0.40). These data are confirmed by ROC curve analysis, showing a low AUC of 54 % for CT, compared with 69 % for Partin tables and 80 % for Briganti nomogram. BS showed some positivity in 74 cases, only four of whom progressed, while 49 patients with negative BS progressed during their follow-up, six of them immediately after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: According to our opinion, the role of CT and BS should be restricted to selected high-risk patients, while clinical predictive nomograms should be adopted for the surgical planning.
PURPOSE: According to the current guidelines, computed tomography (CT) and bone scintigraphy (BS) are optional in intermediate-risk and recommended in high-risk prostate cancer (PCa). We wonder whether it is time for these examinations to be dismissed, evaluating their staging accuracy in a large cohort of radical prostatectomy (RP) patients. METHODS: To evaluate the ability of CT to predict lymph node involvement (LNI), we included 1091 patients treated with RP and pelvic lymph node dissection, previously staged with abdomino-pelvic CT. As for bone metastases, we included 1145 PCa patients deemed fit for surgery, previously staged with Tc-99m methylene diphosphonate planar BS. RESULTS: CT scan showed a sensitivity and specificity in predicting LNI of 8.8 and 98 %; subgroup analysis disclosed a significant association only for the high-risk subgroup of 334 patients (P 0.009) with a sensitivity of 11.8 % and positive predictive value (PPV) of 44.4 %. However, logistic multivariate regression analysis including preoperative risk factors excluded any additional predictive ability of CT even in the high-risk group (P 0.40). These data are confirmed by ROC curve analysis, showing a low AUC of 54 % for CT, compared with 69 % for Partin tables and 80 % for Briganti nomogram. BS showed some positivity in 74 cases, only four of whom progressed, while 49 patients with negative BS progressed during their follow-up, six of them immediately after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: According to our opinion, the role of CT and BS should be restricted to selected high-risk patients, while clinical predictive nomograms should be adopted for the surgical planning.
Authors: L C McLoughlin; F O'Kelly; C O'Brien; M Sheikh; J Feeney; W Torreggiani; J A Thornhill Journal: Ir J Med Sci Date: 2014-11-14 Impact factor: 1.568
Authors: James L Mohler; Philip W Kantoff; Andrew J Armstrong; Robert R Bahnson; Michael Cohen; Anthony Victor D'Amico; James A Eastham; Charles A Enke; Thomas A Farrington; Celestia S Higano; Eric Mark Horwitz; Christopher J Kane; Mark H Kawachi; Michael Kuettel; Timothy M Kuzel; Richard J Lee; Arnold W Malcolm; David Miller; Elizabeth R Plimack; Julio M Pow-Sang; David Raben; Sylvia Richey; Mack Roach; Eric Rohren; Stan Rosenfeld; Edward Schaeffer; Eric J Small; Guru Sonpavde; Sandy Srinivas; Cy Stein; Seth A Strope; Jonathan Tward; Dorothy A Shead; Maria Ho Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Sofie Isebaert; Karin Haustermans; Laura Van den Bergh; Steven Joniau; Piet Dirix; Raymond Oyen; Christophe M Deroose; Hendrik Van Poppel; Evelyne Lerut Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2013-07-23 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Rachel Risko; Selin Merdan; Paul R Womble; Christine Barnett; Zaojun Ye; Susan M Linsell; James E Montie; David C Miller; Brian T Denton Journal: Urology Date: 2014-10-05 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Alberto Briganti; 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 Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2009-12-18 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Mohammad H Bagheri; Mark A Ahlman; Liza Lindenberg; Baris Turkbey; Jeffrey Lin; Ali Cahid Civelek; Ashkan A Malayeri; Piyush K Agarwal; Peter L Choyke; Les R Folio; Andrea B Apolo Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2017-05-12 Impact factor: 3.498
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
Authors: Gita M Schoenberg; Viktoria Schuetz; Joanne N Nyarangi-Dix; Steffen J Diehl; Rafael Heiss; Boris Adamietz Journal: Urologe A Date: 2022-03-09 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Marco Bandini; Michele Marchioni; Felix Preisser; Emanuele Zaffuto; Zhe Tian; Derya Tilki; Francesco Montorsi; Shahrokh F Shariat; Fred Saad; Alberto Briganti; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-05-02 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Dean Markić; Romano Oguić; Kristian Krpina; Ivan Vukelić; Gordana Đorđević; Iva Žuža; Josip Španjol Journal: Acta Clin Croat Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 0.780
Authors: Maarten L Donswijk; Pim J van Leeuwen; Erik Vegt; Zing Cheung; Stijn W T P J Heijmink; Henk G van der Poel; Marcel P M Stokkel Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2020-08-05 Impact factor: 4.430