Sami-Ramzi Leyh-Bannurah1,2, Paolo Dell'Oglio3,4, Zhe Tian3,5, Jonas Schiffmann3,6, Shahrokh F Shariat7, Nazareno Suardi4, Montorsi Francesco4, Briganti Alberto4, Hans Heinzer8, Hartwig Huland8, Markus Graefen8, Lars Budäus8, Pierre I Karakiewicz3. 1. Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Center, 264 Blvd. Rene-Levesque E. Room 228, Montreal, QC, H2X 1P1, Canada. S.Bannurah@googlemail.com. 2. Martini-Clinic, Prostate Cancer Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. S.Bannurah@googlemail.com. 3. Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Center, 264 Blvd. Rene-Levesque E. Room 228, Montreal, QC, H2X 1P1, Canada. 4. Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy. 5. Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. 6. Department of Urology, Academic Hospital Braunschweig, Brunswick, Germany. 7. Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 8. Martini-Clinic, Prostate Cancer Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Unfavorable prostate cancer (PCa) disease at final pathology affects at least 10 % of D'Amico low-risk patients. Thus, conservative therapies including active surveillance may be wrongfully applied. The purposes were to assess the rate of upstaging in a contemporary cohort of D'Amico low-risk PCa patients and to develop and externally validate a nomogram as upstaging prediction tool in two European cohorts. METHODS: Analyses were restricted to 2007 patients who harbored low-risk PCa at ≥10-cores initial biopsy according to D'Amico classification (PSA <10.0 ng/ml, Gleason score <7 and clinical stage ≤T2a). Patients underwent radical prostatectomy at a high-volume center in Hamburg, Germany, from 2010 to 2015. The Hamburg cohort was randomly divided into development (n = 1338) and validation cohorts (n = 669). The development cohort was used to devise a nomogram predicting upstaging, defined as presence of ≥pT3 and/or lymph node invasion. The nomogram was externally validated in two European validation cohorts (Hamburg, n = 669; Milan, n = 465). RESULTS: Upstaging was observed in 187/1338 (14.0 %) of low-risk patients. In multivariable models, four of ten tested variables achieved independent predictor status: age (OR 1.07, 95 % CI 1.04-1.09), PSA (OR 1.21, 95 % CI 1.12-1.31), prostate volume (OR 0.97, 95 % CI 0.96-0.98) and percentage of positive cores (OR 1.02, 95 % CI 1.01-1.03). In external validation, the nomogram demonstrated 70.8 % (Hamburg) and 70.0 % (Milan) accuracy, respectively, with excellent concordance between predicted and observed values. CONCLUSIONS: Our proposed nomogram is capable to accurately identify D'Amico low-risk patients at risk of upstaging, utilizing four routinely available clinical variables, age, PSA, prostate volume and percentage of positive biopsy cores. Unfavorable prostate cancer disease at final pathology affects at least 10 % of D'Amico low-risk patients. Thus, we developed and externally validated a new nomogram based on contemporary low-risk prostate cancer patients to accurately identify D'Amico low-risk patients at risk of upstaging. It utilizes four routine variables, age, PSA, prostate volume and percentage of positive biopsy cores.
PURPOSE: Unfavorable prostate cancer (PCa) disease at final pathology affects at least 10 % of D'Amico low-risk patients. Thus, conservative therapies including active surveillance may be wrongfully applied. The purposes were to assess the rate of upstaging in a contemporary cohort of D'Amico low-risk PCa patients and to develop and externally validate a nomogram as upstaging prediction tool in two European cohorts. METHODS: Analyses were restricted to 2007 patients who harbored low-risk PCa at ≥10-cores initial biopsy according to D'Amico classification (PSA <10.0 ng/ml, Gleason score <7 and clinical stage ≤T2a). Patients underwent radical prostatectomy at a high-volume center in Hamburg, Germany, from 2010 to 2015. The Hamburg cohort was randomly divided into development (n = 1338) and validation cohorts (n = 669). The development cohort was used to devise a nomogram predicting upstaging, defined as presence of ≥pT3 and/or lymph node invasion. The nomogram was externally validated in two European validation cohorts (Hamburg, n = 669; Milan, n = 465). RESULTS: Upstaging was observed in 187/1338 (14.0 %) of low-risk patients. In multivariable models, four of ten tested variables achieved independent predictor status: age (OR 1.07, 95 % CI 1.04-1.09), PSA (OR 1.21, 95 % CI 1.12-1.31), prostate volume (OR 0.97, 95 % CI 0.96-0.98) and percentage of positive cores (OR 1.02, 95 % CI 1.01-1.03). In external validation, the nomogram demonstrated 70.8 % (Hamburg) and 70.0 % (Milan) accuracy, respectively, with excellent concordance between predicted and observed values. CONCLUSIONS: Our proposed nomogram is capable to accurately identify D'Amico low-risk patients at risk of upstaging, utilizing four routinely available clinical variables, age, PSA, prostate volume and percentage of positive biopsy cores. Unfavorable prostate cancer disease at final pathology affects at least 10 % of D'Amico low-risk patients. Thus, we developed and externally validated a new nomogram based on contemporary low-risk prostate cancerpatients to accurately identify D'Amico low-risk patients at risk of upstaging. It utilizes four routine variables, age, PSA, prostate volume and percentage of positive biopsy cores.
Entities:
Keywords:
Active surveillance; Nomogram; PRIAS; Upstaging
Authors: Matthew R Cooperberg; Stephen J Freedland; David J Pasta; Eric P Elkin; Joseph C Presti; Christopher L Amling; Martha K Terris; William J Aronson; Christopher J Kane; Peter R Carroll Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-11-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Tom S Feng; Ali Reza Sharif-Afshar; Jonathan Wu; Quanlin Li; Daniel Luthringer; Rola Saouaf; Hyung L Kim Journal: Urology Date: 2015-06-14 Impact factor: 2.649
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
Authors: Hideshige Koh; Michael W Kattan; Peter T Scardino; Kazuho Suyama; Norio Maru; Kevin Slawin; Thomas M Wheeler; Makoto Ohori Journal: J Urol Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Daphne Hessels; Martijn P M Q van Gils; Onno van Hooij; Sander A Jannink; J Alfred Witjes; Gerald W Verhaegh; Jack A Schalken Journal: Prostate Date: 2010-01-01 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: John B Eifler; Zhaoyang Feng; Brian M Lin; Michael T Partin; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Misop Han; Jonathan I Epstein; Patrick C Walsh; Bruce J Trock; Alan W Partin Journal: BJU Int Date: 2012-07-26 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Lars Budäus; Hendrik Isbarn; Thorsten Schlomm; Hans Heinzer; Alexander Haese; Thomas Steuber; Georg Salomon; Hartwig Huland; Markus Graefen Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2009-05-29 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Eric A Klein; Matthew R Cooperberg; Cristina Magi-Galluzzi; Jeffry P Simko; Sara M Falzarano; Tara Maddala; June M Chan; Jianbo Li; Janet E Cowan; Athanasios C Tsiatis; Diana B Cherbavaz; Robert J Pelham; Imelda Tenggara-Hunter; Frederick L Baehner; Dejan Knezevic; Phillip G Febbo; Steven Shak; Michael W Kattan; Mark Lee; Peter R Carroll Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-05-16 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Cosimo De Nunzio; Jamil Ghahhari; Riccardo Lombardo; Giorgio Ivan Russo; Ana Albano; Antonio Franco; Valeria Baldassarri; Antonio Nacchia; Juan Lopez; Pilar Luque; Maria Jose Ribal; Antonio Alcaraz; Andrea Tubaro Journal: World J Urol Date: 2021-06-26 Impact factor: 4.226