Literature DB >> 26435643

Validation of revised Epstein's criteria for insignificant prostate cancer prediction in a Greek subpopulation.

Κ Chondros1, Ν Karpathakis1, Ι Heretis1, Ε Mavromanolakis1, N Chondros1, F Sofras1, C Mamoulakis1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Different treatment options for patients with prostate cancer (PCa) are applicable after stratifying patients according to various classification criteria. The purpose of our study is to evaluate the revised Epstein's criteria for insignificant PCa prediction in a Greek subpopulation.
METHODS: During a 4-year-period, 172 Cretan patients were submitted to radical retropubic prostatectomy in our institution. 23 out of them met the revised Epstein's criteria for the presence of clinically insignificant PCa (clinical stage T1c, prostate specific antigen density < 0.15 ng/ml/g, absence of Gleason pattern 4-5, <3 positive biopsy cores, presence of <50% tumor per core) during pre-treatment evaluation and were retrospectively included in the study. Post-surgery outcomes were evaluated including pathological stage, surgical margins and Gleason score upgrade.
RESULTS: Organ confined disease and insignificant PCa were predicted with a 74% and 31% accuracy, respectively. These figures are remarkably lower than those derived from similar studies worldwide.
CONCLUSIONS: Due to the high variation in the revised Epstein's criteria prediction accuracy observed worldwide, the development and implementation of novel tools/nomograms with a greater predictive accuracy is still warranted. Hippokratia 2015, 19 (1): 30-33.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Epstein’s criteria; Gleason score; Gleason upgrade; insignificant prostate cancer

Year:  2015        PMID: 26435643      PMCID: PMC4574582     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hippokratia        ISSN: 1108-4189            Impact factor:   0.471


  24 in total

1.  Transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy as a staging procedure to select patients best suited for active surveillance.

Authors:  Al V Taira; Gregory S Merrick; Abbey Bennett; Hugo Andreini; Walter Taubenslag; Robert W Galbreath; Wayne M Butler; Nathan Bittner; Edward Adamovich
Journal:  Am J Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 2.339

2.  Prostate-specific antigen improves the ability of clinical stage and biopsy Gleason sum to predict the pathologic stage at radical prostatectomy in the new millennium.

Authors:  Felix K-H Chun; Alberto Briganti; Andrea Gallina; Georg C Hutterer; Shahrokh F Shariat; Elie Antebie; Jochen Walz; Claus G Roehrborn; Andrea Salonia; Patrizio Rigatti; Fred Saad; Hartwig Huland; Francesco Montorsi; Markus Graefen; Pierre I Karakiewicz
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2007-03-20       Impact factor: 20.096

3.  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

Review 4.  Epstein criteria for insignificant prostate cancer.

Authors:  Sheng F Oon; R William Watson; John J O'Leary; John M Fitzpatrick
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2011-02-14       Impact factor: 5.588

5.  Asian race and impact on outcomes after radical radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Ada Man; Tom Pickles; Kim N Chi
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer.

Authors:  J I Epstein; P C Walsh; M Carmichael; C B Brendler
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1994-02-02       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Characteristics of insignificant clinical T1c prostate tumors. A contemporary analysis.

Authors:  Patrick J Bastian; Leslie A Mangold; Jonathan I Epstein; Alan W Partin
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2004-11-01       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Application of the Epstein criteria for prediction of clinically insignificant prostate cancer in Korean men.

Authors:  Sang E Lee; Dae S Kim; Won K Lee; Hong Z Park; Chang J Lee; Seung H Doo; Seong J Jeong; Cheol Y Yoon; Seok-Soo Byun; Gheeyoung Choe; Sung I Hwang; Hak J Lee; Sung K Hong
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2009-11-13       Impact factor: 5.588

9.  Validation of the contemporary epstein criteria for insignificant prostate cancer in European men.

Authors:  Claudio Jeldres; Nazareno Suardi; Jochen Walz; Georg C Hutterer; Sascha Ahyai; Jean-Baptiste Lattouf; Alexander Haese; Markus Graefen; Andreas Erbersdobler; Hans Heinzer; Hartwig Huland; Pierre I Karakiewicz
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2007-12-07       Impact factor: 20.096

10.  Are clinically insignificant prostate cancers really insignificant among Korean men?

Authors:  Chan Dong Yeom; Seung Hwan Lee; Kyung Kgi Park; Sang Un Park; Byung Ha Chung
Journal:  Yonsei Med J       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 2.759

View more
  3 in total

1.  Necessity of differentiating small (< 10 mm) and large (≥ 10 mm) PI-RADS 4.

Authors:  Sung Yoon Park; Byung Kwan Park
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2019-08-29       Impact factor: 4.226

2.  Diagnostic Accuracy of Contemporary Selection Criteria in Prostate Cancer Patients Eligible for Active Surveillance: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Yu Fan; Yelin Mulati; Lingyun Zhai; Yuke Chen; Yu Wang; Juefei Feng; Wei Yu; Qian Zhang
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-01-10       Impact factor: 6.244

3.  Prostate Cancer Detection with mpMRI According to PI-RADS v2 Compared with Systematic MRI/TRUS-Fusion Biopsy: A Prospective Study.

Authors:  Anja Sauck; Isabelle Keller; Nicolin Hainc; Denis Pfofe; Arash Najafi; Hubert John; Joachim Hohmann
Journal:  Tomography       Date:  2022-08-16
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.