Clinical versus pathologic staging for prostate adenocarcinoma: How do they correlate?

American Journal of Clinical Oncology: Cancer Clinical Trials

Volumn 35, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 364-368

  Cooke, Ellen W ^a   Shrieve, Dennis C ^a   Tward, Jonathan D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF UTAH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

clinical staging; D'Amico risk criteria; pathologic staging; prostate adenocarcinoma; prostate cancer staging

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER RISK; CANCER STAGING; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; D' AMICO RISK STRATIFICATION; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PREDICTION; PROSTATE ADENOCARCINOMA; PROSTATECTOMY; ROACH FORMULA ESTIMATED NODAL RISK;

ADENOCARCINOMA; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; HUMANS; LYMPH NODES; LYMPHATIC METASTASIS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; NEOPLASM STAGING; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RISK FACTORS; SEER PROGRAM; TUMOR MARKERS, BIOLOGICAL;

EID: 84864330847     PISSN: 02773732     EISSN: 1537453X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/COC.0b013e31821241fc     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Zincke H, Oesterling JE, Blute ML, et al. Long-term (15 y) results after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized (stage T2c or lower) prostate cancer. J Urol. 1994;152:1850-1857. (Pubitemid 24322643)
2. Bostwick DG, Myers RP, Oesterling JE. Staging of prostate cancer. Semin Surg Oncol. 1994;10:60-72. (Pubitemid 24053289)
3. Catalona WJ, Smith DS. 5-year tumor recurrence rates after anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol. 1994;152:1837-1842. (Pubitemid 24322641)
4. Chao KK, Goldstein NS, Yan D, et al. Clinicopathologic analysis of extracapsular extension in prostate cancer: should the clinical target volume be expanded posterolaterally to account for microscopic extension? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;65:999-1007.
5. Ohori M, Kattan MW, Koh H, et al. Predicting the presence and side of extracapsular extension: A nomogram for staging prostate cancer. J Urol. 2004;171:1844-1849; discussion 1849. (Pubitemid 38501019)
6. Derweesh IH, Kupelian PA, Zippe C, et al. Continuing trends in pathological stage migration in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urol Oncol. 2004;22:300-306. (Pubitemid 38993307)
7. Cooperberg MR, Moul JW, Carroll PR. The changing face of prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:8146-8151. (Pubitemid 46211547)
8. Partin AW, Mangold LA, Lamm DM, et al. Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium. Urology. 2001;58:843-848. (Pubitemid 34017254)
9. Dong F, Reuther AM, Magi-Galluzzi C, et al. Pathologic stage migration has slowed in the late PSA era. Urology. 2007;70: 839-842. (Pubitemid 350192620)
10. Roach M III, Marquez C, Yuo HS, et al. Predicting the risk of lymph node involvement using the pre-treatment prostate specific antigen and Gleason score in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1994;28:33-37. (Pubitemid 24012852)
11. Partin AW, Yoo J, Carter HB, et al. The use of prostate specific antigen, clinical stage and Gleason score to predict pathological stage in men with localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 1993; 150:110-114. (Pubitemid 23175983)
12. Ghani KR, Grigor K, Tulloch DN, et al. Trends in reporting Gleason score 1991 to 2001: Changes in the pathologist's practice. Eur Urol. 2005;47:196-201. (Pubitemid 40126976)
13. Gervasi LA, Mata J, Easley JD, et al. Prognostic significance of lymph nodal metastases in prostate cancer. J Urol. 1989;142: 332-336. (Pubitemid 19197108)
14. Paul A, Ploussard G, Nicolaiew N, et al. Oncologic outcome after extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Midterm follow-up of 1115 procedures. Eur Urol. 2010;57:267-272.
15. Nguyen PL, Chen MH, Hoffman KE, et al. Predicting the risk of pelvic node involvement among men with prostate cancer in the contemporary era. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;74:104-109.
16. Grossfeld GD, Chang JJ, Broering JM, et al. Under staging and under grading in a contemporary series of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: Results from the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor database. J Urol. 2001;165: 851-856. (Pubitemid 32156294)
17. 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.
18. D'Amico AV, Renshaw AA, Arsenault L, et al. 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;45:841-846. (Pubitemid 29525444)
19. Freedland SJ, Kane CJ, Amling CL, et al. Upgrading and downgrading of prostate needle biopsy specimens: Risk factors and clinical implications. Urology. 2007;69:495-499. (Pubitemid 46428381)
20. Isariyawongse BK, Sun L, Banez LL, et al. Significant discrepancies between diagnostic and pathologic Gleason sums in prostate cancer: The predictive role of age and prostate-specific antigen. Urology. 2008;72:882-886.
21. Shah JB, McKiernan JM, Elkin EP, et al. Prostate biopsy patterns in the CaPSURE database: Evolution with time and impact on outcome after prostatectomy. J Urol. 2008;179:136-140. (Pubitemid 350225691)
22. King CR, McNeal JE, Gill H et al. Extended prostate biopsy scheme improves reliability of Gleason grading: Implications for radiotherapy patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;59: 386-391. (Pubitemid 38622590)
23. Mian BM, Lehr DJ, Moore CK, et al. Role of prostate biopsy schemes in accurate prediction of Gleason scores. Urology. 2006;67:379-383. (Pubitemid 43189860)
24. San Francisco IF, DeWolf WC, Rosen S, et al. Extended prostate needle biopsy improves concordance of Gleason grading between prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2003;169:136-140. (Pubitemid 35461571)
25. Clark T, Parekh DJ, Cookson MS, et al. Randomized prospective evaluation of extended versus limited lymph node dissection in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2003;169:145-147; discussion 147-148. (Pubitemid 35461573)
26. Bader P, Burkhard FC, Markwalder R et al. Is a limited lymph node dissection an adequate staging procedure for prostate cancer? J Urol. 2002;168:514-518; discussion 518. (Pubitemid 34793284)
27. Briganti A, Chun FK, Salonia A, et al. Critical assessment of ideal nodal yield at pelvic lymphadenectomy to accurately diagnose prostate cancer nodal metastasis in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology. 2007;69:147-151. (Pubitemid 46161677)
28. Heidenreich A, Varga Z, Von Knobloch R. Extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: High incidence of lymph node metastasis. J Urol. 2002;167: 1681-1686. (Pubitemid 34240702)
29. Soloway MS, Pareek K, Sharifi R et al. Neoadjuvant androgen ablation before radical prostatectomy in cT2bNxMo prostate cancer: 5-year results. J Urol. 2002;167:112-116. (Pubitemid 34024512)