Literature DB >> 9258062

Update on the appropriate staging evaluation for newly diagnosed prostate cancer.

G J O'Dowd1, R W Veltri, R Orozco, M C Miller, J E Oesterling.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Prostate cancer clinical staging methods and decision support tools were reviewed to assess their accuracy to predict pathological staging results and determine what comprises an appropriate clinical staging evaluation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The MEDLINE data base was searched and 238 abstracts were obtained. Data were extracted from 142 articles that evaluated the preoperative accuracy of digital rectal examination, prostate specific antigen, prostatic acid phosphatase, systematic biopsy parameters (including Gleason scoring), seminal vesicle biopsy, various imaging studies and pelvic lymphadenectomy versus pathological staging results. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy rates were calculated and tabulated from the reported data on each method or decision support tools for organ confined, nonorgan confined and lymph node metastatic tumor.
RESULTS: Decision support tools based on logistic regression analysis, which combine several statistically independent staging parameters, had greater accuracy than any single clinical staging method alone. The most accurate decision support tools for clinical staging combined digital rectal examination (T stage), systematic biopsy parameters (including Gleason scoring) and prostate specific antigen.
CONCLUSIONS: The components that comprise the most accurate decision support tools for clinical staging represent an appropriate staging evaluation for the newly diagnosed prostate cancer patient in 1997. Limited use of radiographic imaging and seminal vesicle biopsy may be indicated in select patients to detect bone metastases, and plan pelvic lymphadenectomy and surgical therapy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9258062     DOI: 10.1097/00005392-199709000-00003

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


  14 in total

Review 1.  [Indications for and results of radical prostatectomy].

Authors:  M Graefen; P G Hammerer; A Haese; H Huland
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 2.  Optimal cost-effective staging evaluations in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Gregory L Lacy; Douglas W Soderdahl; Javier Hernandez
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 3.092

3.  Significance of the percentage of prostate needle biopsy cores with cancer as a predictor of disease extension in radical prostatectomy specimens in Japanese men.

Authors:  Iori Sakai; Ken-ichi Harada; Isao Hara; Hiroshi Eto; Hideaki Miyake
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 2.370

4.  An audit of the investigation and treatment of localised prostatic cancer in the south west region.

Authors:  R N Lodge
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 1.891

Review 5.  The economic costs of early stage prostate cancer.

Authors:  Christopher S Saigal; Mark S Litwin
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 6.  Stage T1c prostate cancer: defining the appropriate staging evaluation and the role for pelvic lymphadenectomy.

Authors:  M C Beduschi; R Beduschi; J E Oesterling
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 7.  Updated trends in imaging use in men diagnosed with prostate cancer.

Authors:  S P Porten; A Smith; A Y Odisho; M S Litwin; C S Saigal; P R Carroll; M R Cooperberg
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2014-05-13       Impact factor: 5.554

8.  Modalities for imaging of prostate cancer.

Authors:  A H Hou; D Swanson; A B Barqawi
Journal:  Adv Urol       Date:  2010-03-17

9.  Artificial neural network to predict skeletal metastasis in patients with prostate cancer.

Authors:  Jainn-Shiun Chiu; Yuh-Feng Wang; Yu-Cheih Su; Ling-Huei Wei; Jian-Guo Liao; Yu-Chuan Li
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 4.460

Review 10.  Quality of life and economic considerations in the management of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Marco Turini; Alberto Redaelli; Paola Gramegna; Davide Radice
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 4.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.