OBJECTIVES: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, transrectal ultrasound, and systematic sextant biopsies have each shown limited ability to predict prostate cancer volume. In combination, these studies may allow more accurate estimation of volume and prognosis. METHODS: One hundred twenty-four patients were evaluated prior to radical prostatectomy. Interactive stepwise multiple regression and separate logistic regression analysis were performed for prediction of prostate cancer volume and volume range. RESULTS: The cancer volumes calculated correlated with the volumes in the radical prostatectomy specimens with R2 of 0.76. Cancers were predicted to be in the volume range associated with poor prognosis (more than 12 cc) or clinically insignificant cancer (less than 1.0 cc) with bias corrected error rates of 5.3% and 10%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The formula for prediction of cancer volume correlates well with actual cancer volume in 92 patients but is not adequate to predict volume for an individual patient. The formulas for prediction of volume range show promising predictive ability and may be useful if the extent of disease is unclear.
OBJECTIVES:Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, transrectal ultrasound, and systematic sextant biopsies have each shown limited ability to predict prostate cancer volume. In combination, these studies may allow more accurate estimation of volume and prognosis. METHODS: One hundred twenty-four patients were evaluated prior to radical prostatectomy. Interactive stepwise multiple regression and separate logistic regression analysis were performed for prediction of prostate cancer volume and volume range. RESULTS: The cancer volumes calculated correlated with the volumes in the radical prostatectomy specimens with R2 of 0.76. Cancers were predicted to be in the volume range associated with poor prognosis (more than 12 cc) or clinically insignificant cancer (less than 1.0 cc) with bias corrected error rates of 5.3% and 10%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The formula for prediction of cancer volume correlates well with actual cancer volume in 92 patients but is not adequate to predict volume for an individual patient. The formulas for prediction of volume range show promising predictive ability and may be useful if the extent of disease is unclear.
Authors: Antonio Lopez-Beltran; Liang Cheng; Francesco Montorsi; Maria Scarpelli; Maria R Raspollini; Rodolfo Montironi Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2017-08-16 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Kenneth V Honn; Amer Aref; Yong Q Chen; Michael L Cher; John D Crissman; Jeffrey D Forman; Xiang Gao; David Grignon; Maha Hussain; Arthur T Porter; Edson J Pontes; Bruce Redman; Wael Sakr; Richard Severson; Dean G Tang; David P Wood Journal: Pathol Oncol Res Date: 1996 Impact factor: 3.201
Authors: Turgay Ayer; Jagpreet Chhatwal; Oguzhan Alagoz; Charles E Kahn; Ryan W Woods; Elizabeth S Burnside Journal: Radiographics Date: 2009-11-09 Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Markos Karavitakis; Hashim U Ahmed; Paul D Abel; Steven Hazell; Mathias H Winkler Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2010-11-23 Impact factor: 66.675