Comparison of accuracy among three generations of partin tables in a chinese cohort

Canadian Journal of Urology

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 5619-5624

  Xiao, Wen Jun ^a,b   Ye, Ding Wei ^a,b   Yao, Xu Dong ^a,b   Zhang, Shi Lin ^a,b   Dai, Bo ^a,b   Wang, Chao Fu ^a,b   Wang, Jian ^a,b   Zhang, Hai Liang ^a,b   Shen, Yi Jun ^a,b   Zhu, Yao ^a,b   Zhu, Yi Ping ^a,b   Shi, Guo Hai ^a,b   Ma, Chun Guang ^a,b   Qin, Xiao Jian ^a,b   Lin, Guo Wen ^a,b  

^a FUDAN UNIVERSITY SHANGHAI CANCER CENTER   (China)

^b FUDAN UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

Predictive tests; Prostate cancer; Prostatectomy; Staging

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

AGED; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; BLOOD; CANCER STAGING; CHINA; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PROSTATE TUMOR; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC;

AGED; AREA UNDER CURVE; CHINA; COHORT STUDIES; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM STAGING; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; ROC CURVE;

EID: 80053366761     PISSN: 11959479     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. 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(18):1445-1451.
2. Blute ML, Bergstralh EJ, Partin AW et al. Validation of Partin tables for predicting pathological stage of clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2000;164(5):1591-1595.
3. Graefen M, Augustin H, Karakiewicz PI et al. Can predictive models for prostate cancer patients derived in the United States of America be utilized in European patients? A validation study of the Partin tables. Eur Urol 2003;43(1):6-10; discussion 11.
4. Partin AW, Mangold LA, Lamm DM, Walsh PC, Epstein JI, Pearson JD. Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium. Urology 2001;58(6):843-848.
5. Ayyathurai R, Ananthakrishnan K, Rajasundaram R, Knight RJ, Toussi H, Srinivasan V. Predictive ability of partin tables 2001 in a Welsh population. Urol Int 2006;76(3):217-222.
6. Augustin H, Eggert T, Wenske S et al. Comparison of accuracy between the Partin tables of 1997 and 2001 to predict final pathological stage in clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2004;171(1):177-181.
7. Eskicorapci SY, Karabulut E, Turkeri L et al. Validation of 2001 Partin tables in Turkey: a multicenter study. Eur Urol 2005;47(2):185-189.
8. Naito S, Kuroiwa K, Kinukawa N et al. Validation of Partin tables and development of a preoperative nomogram for Japanese patients with clinically localized prostate cancer using 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology consensus on Gleason grading: data from the Clinicopathological Research Group for Localized Prostate Cancer. J Urol 2008;180(3):904-909; discussion 909-910.
9. Gao X, Ren S, Lu X, Xu C, Sun Y. The newer the better? Comparison of the 1997 and 2001 partin tables for pathologic stage prediction of prostate cancer in China. Urology 2008;72(5):1096-1101.
10. Makarov DV, Trock BJ, Humphreys EB et al. Updated nomogram to predict pathologic stage of prostate cancer given prostate-specific antigen level, clinical stage, and biopsy Gleason score (Partin tables) based on cases from 2000 to 2005. Urology 2007;69(6):1095-1101.
11. Yu JB, Makarov DV, Sharma R, Peschel RE, Partin AW, Gross CP. Validation of the partin nomogram for prostate cancer in a national sample. J Urol 2010;183(1):105-111.
12. Karakiewicz PI, Bhojani N, Capitanio U et al. External validation of the updated Partin tables in a cohort of North American men. J Urol 2008;180(3):898-902; discussion 902-893.
13. Bhojani N, Salomon L, Capitanio U et al. External validation of the updated partin tables in a cohort of French and Italian men. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009;73(2):347-352.
14. Bhojani N, Ahyai S, Graefen M et al. Partin Tables cannot accurately predict the pathological stage at radical prostatectomy. Eur J Surg Oncol 2009;35(2):123-128.
15. Fanning DM, Fan Y, Fitzpatrick JM, Watson RW. External validation of the 2007 and 2001 partin tables in irish prostate cancer patients. Urol Int 2010;84(2):174-179.
16. Augustin H, Isbarn H, Auprich M et al. Head to head comparison of three generations of Partin tables to predict final pathological stage in clinically localised prostate cancer. Eur J Cancer 2010;46(12):2235-2241.
17. Gosselaar C, Kranse R, Roobol MJ, Roemeling S, Schroder FH. The interobserver variability of digital rectal examination in a large randomized trial for the screening of prostate cancer. Prostate 2008;68(9):985-993.
18. Fitzpatrick JM, Banu E, Oudard S. Prostate-specific antigen kinetics in localized and advanced prostate cancer. BJU Int 2009;103(5):578-587.
19. King CR. Patterns of prostate cancer biopsy grading: trends and clinical implications. Int J Cancer 2000;90(6):305-311.
20. Sim HG, Cheng CW. Changing demography of prostate cancer in Asia. Eur J Cancer 2005;41(6):834-845.
21. Peyromaure M, Debre B, Mao K et al. Management of prostate cancer in China: a multicenter report of 6 institutions. J Urol 2005;174(5):1794-1797.
22. Chan TY, Partin AW, Walsh PC, Epstein JI. Prognostic significance of Gleason score 3+4 versus Gleason score 4+3 tumor at radical prostatectomy. Urology 2000;56(5):823-827.
23. 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(2):559-562.