Xiaochuan Wang1, Yu Zhang1, Zhengguo Ji1, Peiqian Yang1, Ye Tian2. 1. Department of Urology, Capital Medical University affiliated Beijing Friendship Hospital, No. 95, Yongan Road, Xicheng District, 100050, Beijing, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Urology, Capital Medical University affiliated Beijing Friendship Hospital, No. 95, Yongan Road, Xicheng District, 100050, Beijing, People's Republic of China. tianye166@126.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the predictive performance of age for the risk of Gleason score change and pathologic upstaging. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception until May 2020. Quality of included studies was appraised utilizing the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for case-control studies. The publication bias was evaluated by funnel plots and Egger's tests. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Our search yielded 27 studies with moderate-to-high quality including 84296 patients with mean age of 62.1 years. From biopsy to prostatectomy, upgrading and upstaging occurred in 32.3% and 9.8% of patients, respectively. Upgrading from diagnostic biopsy to confirmatory biopsy was found in 16.8%. Older age was associated with a significant increased risk of upgrading (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.03-1.05), and similar direction of effect was found in studies focused on upgrading from diagnostic biopsy to confirmatory biopsy (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.04-1.08). For pathologic upstaging within older men compared with younger, the pooled odds was 1.03 (95% CI 1.01-1.04). CONCLUSION: Thorough consideration of age in the context of effect sizes for other factors not only prompts more accurate risk stratification but also helps providers to select optimal therapies for patients with prostate cancer.
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the predictive performance of age for the risk of Gleason score change and pathologic upstaging. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception until May 2020. Quality of included studies was appraised utilizing the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for case-control studies. The publication bias was evaluated by funnel plots and Egger's tests. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Our search yielded 27 studies with moderate-to-high quality including 84296 patients with mean age of 62.1 years. From biopsy to prostatectomy, upgrading and upstaging occurred in 32.3% and 9.8% of patients, respectively. Upgrading from diagnostic biopsy to confirmatory biopsy was found in 16.8%. Older age was associated with a significant increased risk of upgrading (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.03-1.05), and similar direction of effect was found in studies focused on upgrading from diagnostic biopsy to confirmatory biopsy (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.04-1.08). For pathologic upstaging within older men compared with younger, the pooled odds was 1.03 (95% CI 1.01-1.04). CONCLUSION: Thorough consideration of age in the context of effect sizes for other factors not only prompts more accurate risk stratification but also helps providers to select optimal therapies for patients with prostate cancer.
Authors: Stephen A Brassell; Kevin R Rice; Patrick M Parker; Yongmei Chen; James S Farrell; Jennifer Cullen; David G McLeod Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-11-12 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Jaime O Herrera-Caceres; Marian S Wettstein; Hanan Goldberg; Ants Toi; Thenappan Chandrasekar; Dixon T S Woon; Ardalan E Ahmad; Noelia Sanmamed-Salgado; Omar Alhunaidi; Khaled Ajib; Gregory Nason; Guan Hee Tan; Neil Fleshner; Laurence Klotz Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2020-03-30 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Neil E Martin; Ming-Hui Chen; Danjie Zhang; Jerome P Richie; Anthony V D'Amico Journal: Clin Genitourin Cancer Date: 2016-06-16 Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: Eugene J Pietzak; Abdo E Kabarriti; Phillip Mucksavage; Thomas Bavaria; Keith Van Arsdalen; S Bruce Malkowicz; Alan J Wein; Thomas J Guzzo Journal: Urology Date: 2014-10-05 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Timothy D Lyon; Robert M Turner; Jonathan G Yabes; Elen Woldemichael; Benjamin J Davies; Bruce L Jacobs; Joel B Nelson Journal: Urology Date: 2016-08-08 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Umberto Capitanio; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Luc Valiquette; Paul Perrotte; Claudio Jeldres; Alberto Briganti; Andrea Gallina; Nazareno Suardi; Andrea Cestari; Giorgio Guazzoni; Andrea Salonia; Francesco Montorsi Journal: Urology Date: 2009-02-04 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: M Minhaj Siddiqui; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Hong Truong; Lambros Stamatakis; Srinivas Vourganti; Jeffrey Nix; Anthony N Hoang; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Brian Shuch; Michael Weintraub; Jochen Kruecker; Hayet Amalou; Baris Turkbey; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-06-12 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Hwang Gyun Jeon; Jae Ho Yoo; Byong Chang Jeong; Seong Il Seo; Seong Soo Jeon; Han-Yong Choi; Hyun Moo Lee; Michelle Ferrari; James D Brooks; Benjamin I Chung Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-11-14 Impact factor: 3.240