Literature DB >> 2810502

A comparison of nuclear morphometry and Gleason grade as a predictor of prognosis in stage A2 prostate cancer: a critical analysis.

A W Partin1, A C Walsh, R V Pitcock, J L Mohler, J I Epstein, D S Coffey.   

Abstract

The natural history of stage A2 prostate cancer is unknown. Previous studies from this institution have shown that, without treatment, a third of the men with clinically localized stage A2 prostatic adenocarcinoma will have disease progression within 4 years. Presently, most patients who present with stage A2 prostate cancer receive surgical or radiation therapy. The degree of differentiation of the tumor (Gleason score) presently is used to predict the prognosis among patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. The Gleason score does well to predict the prognosis for patients with scores of 2 to 4 and 8 to 10. Unfortunately, the majority of patients fall within the range of Gleason scores of 5 to 7. Better methods are needed to predict which patients diagnosed with stage A2 prostate cancer have a high probability of disease progression. Several studies have reported that morphometrically determined nuclear shape descriptors provided accurate separation of these patients that was superior to Gleason grading methods. To evaluate critically the usefulness of nuclear morphometry for prediction of prognosis we developed a system. The Hopkins Morphometry System, that calculated and compared 15 different shape descriptors that were analyzed by 17 different statistical tests. We tested this system on 18 untreated patients with stage A2 prostate cancer with an average followup of 10.5 years (range 5 to 18 years). For each patient 17 statistical analyses of the 15 shape descriptors (255 total) were evaluated and 50 analyses (50 of 255, 19.6%), including average nuclear roundness factor, provided significant separation (p less than 0.01) of the patients on the basis of outcome, whereas the Gleason score (p equals 0.076) did not. The best separation (p less than 0.01) was provided by the lower quartile analysis of the ellipticity shape descriptor.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2810502     DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)39049-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  18 in total

Review 1.  Nuclear morphometry, nucleomics and prostate cancer progression.

Authors:  Robert W Veltri; Christhunesa S Christudass; Sumit Isharwal
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2012-04-16       Impact factor: 3.285

Review 2.  Structure and function analysis in circulating tumor cells: using nanotechnology to study nuclear size in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Nu Yao; Yu-Jen Jan; Shirley Cheng; Jie-Fu Chen; Leland Wk Chung; Hsian-Rong Tseng; Edwin M Posadas
Journal:  Am J Clin Exp Urol       Date:  2018-04-01

3.  Nuclear grading versus Gleason grading in small samples containing prostate cancer: a tissue microarray study.

Authors:  Daniel Wittschieber; Jens Köllermann; Thorsten Schlomm; Guido Sauter; Andreas Erbersdobler
Journal:  Pathol Oncol Res       Date:  2010-04-23       Impact factor: 3.201

4.  Testing a multigene signature of prostate cancer death in the Swedish Watchful Waiting Cohort.

Authors:  Lorelei A Mucci; Yudi Pawitan; Francesca Demichelis; Katja Fall; Jennifer R Stark; Hans-Olov Adami; Swen-Olof Andersson; Ove Andrén; Anna Eisenstein; Lars Holmberg; Wei Huang; Philip W Kantoff; Robert Kim; Sven Perner; Meir J Stampfer; Jan-Erik Johansson; Mark A Rubin
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2008-06-26       Impact factor: 4.254

5.  Long-term assessment of prostate cancer progression free survival: evaluation of pathological parameters, nuclear shape and molecular biomarkers of pathogenesis.

Authors:  Robert W Veltri; Sumit Isharwal; M Craig Miller; Jonathan I Epstein; Leslie A Mangold; Elizabeth Humphreys; Alan W Partin
Journal:  Prostate       Date:  2008-12-01       Impact factor: 4.104

6.  Valproic acid causes dose- and time-dependent changes in nuclear structure in prostate cancer cells in vitro and in vivo.

Authors:  Madeleine S Q Kortenhorst; Sumit Isharwal; Paul J van Diest; Wasim H Chowdhury; Cameron Marlow; Michael A Carducci; Ronald Rodriguez; Robert W Veltri
Journal:  Mol Cancer Ther       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 6.261

7.  Clinicopathologic factors and nuclear morphometry as independent prognosticators in KIT-positive gastrointestinal stromal tumors.

Authors:  Sonja E Steigen; Bjørn Straume; Dmitry Turbin; Andy K W Chan; Samuel Leung; Torsten O Nielsen; Sigurd Lindal
Journal:  J Histochem Cytochem       Date:  2007-10-15       Impact factor: 2.479

8.  Using nuclear morphometry to predict the need for treatment among men with low grade, low stage prostate cancer enrolled in a program of expectant management with curative intent.

Authors:  Danil V Makarov; Cameron Marlow; Jonathan I Epstein; M Craig Miller; Patricia Landis; Alan W Partin; H Ballentine Carter; Robert W Veltri
Journal:  Prostate       Date:  2008-02-01       Impact factor: 4.104

9.  DNA Ploidy as surrogate for biopsy gleason score for preoperative organ versus nonorgan-confined prostate cancer prediction.

Authors:  Sumit Isharwal; M Craig Miller; Jonathan I Epstein; Leslie A Mangold; Elizabeth Humphreys; Alan W Partin; Robert W Veltri
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2009-02-03       Impact factor: 2.649

10.  Quantitative pathology: historical background, clinical research and application of nuclear morphometry and DNA image cytometry.

Authors:  Abdelbaset Buhmeida
Journal:  Libyan J Med       Date:  2006-09-20       Impact factor: 1.657

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.