A nomogram for predicting upgrading in patients with low-and intermediate-grade prostate cancer in the era of extended prostate sampling

BJU International

Volumn 105, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 352-358

  Moussa, Ayman S ^a   Kattan, Michael W ^a   Berglund, Ryan ^a   Yu, Changhong ^a   Fareed, Khaled ^a   Jones, J Stephen ^a  

^a LERNER RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Biopsy; Gleason score; Prostate cancer; Risk upgrading; Surgical specimen

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; CALIBRATION; CANCER GRADING; CANCER STAGING; GLEASON SCORE; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HUMAN; INFLAMMATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NOMOGRAM; PREDICTOR VARIABLE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY SAMPLE; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC;

ADULT; AGED; BIOPSY; DIGITAL RECTAL EXAMINATION; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NOMOGRAMS; PROSTATE; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

EID: 75149137443     PISSN: 14644096     EISSN: 1464410X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08778.x     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Rubin MA, Bismar TA, Curtis S, Montie JE. Prostate needle biopsy reporting: how are the surgical members of the Society of Urologic Oncology using pathology reports to guide treatment of prostate cancer patients? Am J Surg Pathol 2004 28: 946 952
2. Epstein JI, Partin AW, Sauvageot J, Walsh PC. Prediction of progression following radical prostatectomy. A multivariate analysis of 721 men with long-term follow-up. Am J Surg Pathol 1996 20: 286 292
3. Dong F, Jones JS, Stephenson AJ, Magi-Galluzzi C, Reuther AM, Klein EA. Prostate cancer volume at biopsy predicts clinically significant upgrading. J Urol 2008 179: 896 900
4. Moussa AS, Li J, Soriano M, Klein EA, Dong F, Jones JS. Prostate biopsy clinical and pathological variables that predict significant grading changes in patients with intermediate and high grade prostate cancer. BJU Int 2009 103: 43 8
5. Chun FK, Steuber T, Erbersdobler A et al. Development and internal validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of prostate cancer Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology. Eur Urol 2006 49: 820 826
6. Chun FK, Briganti A, Shariat SF et al. Significant upgrading affects a third of men diagnosed with prostate cancer: predictive nomogram and internal validation. BJU Int 2006 98: 329 334
7. Capitanio U, Karakiewicz PI, Valiquette L et al. Biopsy core number represents one of foremost predictors of clinically significant Gleason sum upgrading in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Urology 2009 73: 1087 1091
8. Sakr WA, Tefilli MV, Grignon DJ et al. Gleason score 7 prostate cancer: a heterogeneous entity? Correlation with pathologic parameters and disease-free survival. Urology 2000 56: 730 734
9. Oesterling JE, Brendler CB, Epstein JI, Kimball AW Jr, Walsh PC. Correlation of clinical stage, serum prostatic acid phosphatase and preoperative Gleason grade with final pathological stage in 275 patients with clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 1987 138: 92 8
10. Schmid H, Oberpenning F, Pummer K. Diagnosis and staging of prostatic carcinoma: what is really necessary? Urol Int 1999 63: 57 61
11. Herman CM, Kattan MW, Ohori M, Scardino PT, Wheeler TM. Primary Gleason pattern as a predictor of disease progression in Gleason score 7 prostate cancer: a multivariate analysis of 823 men treated with radical prostatectomy. Am J Surg Pathol 2001 25: 657 660
12. Partin AW, Kattan MW, Subong EN et al. Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update. JAMA 1997 277: 1445 1451
13. Fukagai T, Namiki T, Namiki H, Carlile RG, Shimada M, Yoshida H. Discrepancies between Gleason scores of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Pathol Int 2001 51: 364 370
14. Altay B, Kefi A, Nazli O, Killi R, Semerci B, Akar I. Comparison of Gleason scores from sextant prostate biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens. Urol Int 2001 67: 14 8
15. Montesino SM, Jimenez AJ, Reparaz RB et al. Correlation between Gleason score on prostate biopsies diagnostic of adenocarcinoma and radical prostatectomy specimens. Arch Esp Urol 2004 57: 519 523
16. Arellano L, Castillo O, Metrebian E. Concordance of Gleason histological scoring for prostatic cancer in needle biopsies and the surgical piece obtained during radical prostatectomy. Rev Med Chil 2004 132: 971 978
17. Cookson MS, Fleshner NE, Soloway SM, Fair WR. Correlation between Gleason score of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen: accuracy and clinical implications. J Urol 1997 157: 559 562
18. Bostwick DG. Grading prostate cancer. Am J Clin Pathol 1994 102: S38 56
19. di Loreto C, Fitzpatrick B, Underhill S et al. Correlation between visual clues, Objective: architectural features, and interobserver agreement in prostate cancer. Am J Clin Pathol 1991 96: 70 5
20. Carlson GD, Calvanese CB, Kahane H, Epstein JI. Accuracy of biopsy Gleason scores from a large uropathology laboratory: use of a diagnostic protocol to minimize observer variability. Urology 1998 51: 525 529
21. San Francisco IF, DeWolf WC, Rosen S, Upton M, Olumi AF. Extended prostate needle biopsy improves concordance of Gleason grading between prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2003 169: 136 140
22. Mian BM, Lehr DJ, Moore CK et al. Role of prostate biopsy schemes in accurate prediction of Gleason scores. Urology 2006 67: 379 383
23. King CR, McNeal JE, Gill H, Presti JC Jr. Extended prostate biopsy scheme improves reliability of Gleason grading: implications for radiotherapy patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004 59: 386 391
24. Kojima M, Troncoso P, Babaian RJ. Use of prostate-specific antigen and tumor Volume in predicting needle biopsy grading error. Urology 1995 45: 807 812
25. D'Amico AV, Renshaw AA, Arsenault L, Schultz D, Richie JP. Clinical predictors of upgrading to Gleason grade 4 or 5 disease at radical prostatectomy: potential implications for patient selection for radiation and androgen suppression therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999 45: 8416
26. King CR. Patterns of prostate cancer biopsy grading: trends and clinical implications. Int J Cancer 2000 90: 305 311
27. Gregori A, Vieweg J, Dahm P, Paulson DF. Comparison of ultrasound-guided biopsies and prostatectomy specimens: predictive accuracy of Gleason score and tumor site. Urol Int 2001 66: 66 71
28. King CR, Patel DA, Terris MK. Prostate biopsy Volume indices do not predict for significant Gleason upgrading. Am J Clin Oncol 2005 28: 125 129
29. Djavan B, Kadesky K, Klopukh B, Marberger M, Roehrborn CG. Gleason scores from prostate biopsies obtained with 18-gauge biopsy needles poorly predict Gleason scores of radical prostatectomy specimens. Eur Urol 1998 33: 261 270
30. O'Dowd GJ, Veltri RW, Orozco R, Miller MC, Oesterling JE. Update on the appropriate staging evaluation for newly diagnosed prostate cancer. J Urol 1997 158: 687 698