Clinically significant gleason sum upgrade: External validation and head-to-head comparison of the existing nomograms

Cancer

Volumn 118, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 378-385

  Iremashvili, Viacheslav ^a   Manoharan, Murugesan ^a   Pelaez, Liset ^a   Rosenberg, Daniel L ^a   Soloway, Mark S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI MILLER SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Nomograms; Prediction; Prostate biopsy; Prostatectomy; Prostatic neoplasms

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; CANCER RISK; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NOMOGRAM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; RISK ASSESSMENT; TUMOR BIOPSY; VALIDATION STUDY;

AGED; BIOPSY; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; NOMOGRAMS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84855506284     PISSN: 0008543X     EISSN: 10970142     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.26306     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Boorjian SA, Karnes RJ, Crispen PL, et al. The impact of discordance between biopsy and pathological Gleason scores on survival after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2009;181:95-104.
2. Muntener M, Epstein JI, Hernandez DJ, et al. Prognostic significance of Gleason score discrepancies between needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2008;53:767-775.
3. D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1998;280:969-974. (Pubitemid 28445094)
4. Bastian PJ, Carter BH, Bjartell A, et al. Insignificant prostate cancer and active surveillance: from definition to clinical implications. Eur Urol. 2009;55:1321-1330.
5. 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.
6. Freedland SJ, Kane CJ, Amling CL, Aronson WJ, Terris MK, Presti JC Jr. Upgrading and downgrading of prostate needle biopsy specimens: risk factors and clinical implications. Urology. 2007;69:495-499. (Pubitemid 46428381)
7. Gofrit ON, Zorn KC, Taxy JB, et al. Predicting the risk of patients with biopsy Gleason score 6 to harbor a higher grade cancer. J Urol. 2007;178:1925-1928. (Pubitemid 47538623)
8. 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.
9. Kulkarni GS, Lockwood G, Evans A, et al. Clinical predictors of Gleason score upgrading: implications for patients considering watchful waiting, active surveillance, or brachytherapy. Cancer. 2007;109:2432-2438. (Pubitemid 46906461)
10. Moussa AS, Kattan MW, Berglund R, Yu C, Fareed K, Jones JS. A nomogram for predicting upgrading in patients with low- and intermediate-grade prostate cancer in the era of extended prostate sampling. BJU Int. 2010;105:352-358.
11. Capitanio U, Karakiewicz PI, Valiquette L, et al. Biopsy core number represents 1 of foremost predictors of clinically significant Gleason sum upgrading in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Urology. 2009;73:1087-1091.
12. Tewari A, Indudhara R, Shinohara K, et al. Comparison of transrectal ultrasound prostatic volume estimation with magnetic resonance imaging volume estimation and surgical specimen weight in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Clin Ultrasound. 1996;24:169-174. (Pubitemid 26117030)
13. Sajadi KP, Terris MK, Hamilton RJ, et al. Body mass index, prostate weight and transrectal ultrasound prostate volume accuracy. J Urol. 2007;178(3 pt 1):990-995. (Pubitemid 47211082)
14. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under 2 or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44:837-845.
15. Vickers AJ, Elkin EB. Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med Decis Making. 2006;26:565-574. (Pubitemid 44728772)
16. Touijer K, Scardino PT. Nomograms for staging, prognosis, and predicting treatment outcomes. Cancer. 2009;115(13 suppl):3107-3111.
17. Shariat SF, Karakiewicz PI, Suardi N, Kattan MW. Comparison of nomograms with other methods for predicting outcomes in prostate cancer: a critical analysis of the literature. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14:4400-4407.
18. Grzybowski M, Younger JG. Statistical methodology: III. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Acad Emerg Med. 1997;4:818-826. (Pubitemid 27332653)
19. Soloway MS, Soloway CT, Eldefrawy A, Acosta K, Kava B, Manoharan M. Careful selection and close monitoring of low-risk prostate cancer patients on active surveillance minimizes the need for treatment. Eur Urol. 2010;58:831-835.
20. Sartor AO, Hricak H, Wheeler TM, et al. Evaluating localized prostate cancer and identifying candidates for focal therapy. Urology. 2008;72(6 suppl):S12-S24.
21. Epstein JI, Sanderson H, Carter HB, Scharfstein DO. Utility of saturation biopsy to predict insignificant cancer at radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2005;66:356-360. (Pubitemid 41138097)
22. Ploussard G, Durand X, Xylinas E, et al. Prostate cancer antigen 3 score accurately predicts tumour volume and might help in selecting prostate cancer patients for active surveillance. Eur Urol. 2011;59:422-429.
23. San Francisco IF, Werner L, Regan MM, Garnick MB, Bubley G, DeWolf WC. Risk stratification and validation of prostate specific antigen density as independent predictor of progression in men with low risk prostate cancer during active surveillance. J Urol. 2010;185:471-476.
24. Tosoian JJ, Trock BJ, Landis P, et al. Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:2185-2190.
25. Cooperberg MR, Cowan JE, Hilton JF, et al. Outcomes of active surveillance for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;29:228-234.