Decision curve analysis to compare 3 versions of Partin Tables to predict final pathologic stage

Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations

Volumn 30, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 396-401

  Augustin, Herbert ^a   Sun, Maxine ^b   Isbarn, Hendrik ^b,c   Pummer, Karl ^a   Karakiewicz, Pierre ^b  

^a MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF GRAZ   (Austria)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER HAMBURG EPPENDORF   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER STAGING; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NOMOGRAM; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

ADULT; AGED; BIOPSY; COHORT STUDIES; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; HUMANS; LYMPH NODES; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; NEOPLASM STAGING; NOMOGRAMS; PROSTATE; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SEMINAL VESICLES;

EID: 84863007255     PISSN: 10781439     EISSN: 18732496     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2010.07.003     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Kattan M.W. Expert systems in medicine. International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences 2001, 5135-5139. Pergamon, Oxford. N.J. Smelser, P.B. Baltes (Eds.).
2. Partin A.W., Yoo J., Carter H.B., et al. The use of prostate specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathologic stage in men with localized prostate cancer. J Urol 1993, 150:110-114.
3. Partin A.W., Kattan M.W., Subong E.N., et al. Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathologic stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update. JAMA 1997, 277:1445-1451.
4. Partin A.W., Mangold L.A., Lamm D.M., et al. Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium. Urology 2001, 58:843-848.
5. Makarov D.V., Trock B.J., Humphreys E.B., 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, 69:1095-1101.
6. Yu J.B., Makarov D.V., Sharma R., et al. Validation of the Partin nomogram for prostate cancer in a national sample. J Urol 2010, 183:105-111.
7. Graefen M., Augustin H., Karakiewicz P.I., 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, 43:6-10.
8. Bhojani N., Ahyai S., Graefen M., et al. Partin Tables cannot accurately predict the pathologic stage at radical prostatectomy. Eur J Surg Oncol 2009, 35:123-128.
9. 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, 73:347-352.
10. Shariat S.F., Karakiewicz P.I., Roehrborn C.G., et al. An updated catalog of prostate cancer predictive tools. Cancer 2008, 113:3075-3099.
11. Vickers A.J., Elkin E.B. Decision curve analysis: A novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med Decis Making 2006, 26:565-574.
12. Sobin L.H., Wittekind C. Prostate. UICC TNM Classification of Malignant Tumors 2002, 184-187. Wiley, New York. 6th ed. L.H. Sobin, C. Wittekind (Eds.).
13. McNeal J.E., Redwine E.A., Freiha F.S., et al. Zonal distribution of prostatic adenocarcinoma. Correlation with histologic pattern and direction of spread. Am J Surg Pathol 1988, 12:897-906.
14. Gleason D.J., Mellinger G.T. Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histologic grading and clinical staging. J Urol 1974, 111:58-64. Veterans Administration Cooperative Urological Research Group.
15. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Decision curve analysis New York, Accessed: October 2009. http://www.mskcc.org/mskcc/shared/graphics/epidemiology/Vickers/Decision_Curve_Analysis/Tutorial_R/v2_Worked_example_of_decisioncurve_analysis_using_R.pdf.
16. Ross P.L., Gerigk C., Gonen M., et al. Comparisons of nomograms and urologists' predictions in prostate cancer. Semin Urol Oncol 2002, 20:82-88.
17. Augustin H., Isbarn H., Auprich M., et al. Head to head comparison of three generations of Partin Tables to predict final pathologic stage in clinically localized prostate cancer. Eur J Cancer 2010, 46:2235-2241.
18. Sokoloff M.H., Brendler C.B. Indications and contraindications for nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. Urol Clin North Am 2001, 28:535-543.
19. Albers P., Schäfers S., Löhmer H., et al. Seminal vesicle-sparing perineal radical prostatectomy improves early functional results in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. BJU 2007, 100:1050-1054.
20. Chun F.K., Graefen M., Zacharias M., et al. Anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy long-term recurrence-free survival rates for localized prostate cancer. World J Urol 2006, 24:273-280.
21. Jacob R., Hanlon A.L., Horwitz E.M., et al. Role of prostate dose escalation in patients with greater than 15% risk of pelvic lymph node involvement. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005, 61:695-700.
22. Mattei A., Fuechsel F.G., Bhatta Dhar N., et al. The template of the primary lymphatic landing sites of the prostate should be revisited: Results of a multimodality mapping study. Eur Urol 2008, 53:118-125.
23. Steyerberg E.W., Vickers A.J. Decision curve analysis: A discussion. Med Decis Making 2008, 28:146-149.