Nomograms to predict the pathological stage of clinically localized prostate cancer in Korean men: Comparison with Western predictive tools using decision curve analysis

International Journal of Urology

Volumn 19, Issue 9, 2012, Pages 846-852

  Jeong, Chang Wook ^a   Jeong, Seong Jin ^a   Hong, Sung Kyu ^a   Lee, Seung Bae ^b   Ku, Ja Hyeon ^c   Byun, Seok Soo ^a   Jeong, Hyeon ^b   Kwak, Cheol ^c   Kim, Hyeon Hoe ^c   Lee, Eunsik ^c   Lee, Sang Eun ^a  

^a Seoul National University Bundang Hospital   (South Korea)

^b Seoul National University   (South Korea)

^c Seoul National University Hospital   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Nomograms; Pathology; Prostatectomy; Prostatic neoplasms; Regression analysis; Statistics

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER STAGING; CONTROLLED STUDY; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LYMPH NODE METASTASIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NOMOGRAM; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; SEMINAL VESICLE; VALIDATION PROCESS;

AGED; AREA UNDER CURVE; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM STAGING; NOMOGRAMS; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REPUBLIC OF KOREA; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 84865571104     PISSN: 09198172     EISSN: 14422042     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2012.03040.x     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M etal. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur. Urol. 2011; 59: 61-71.
2. Lu-Yao GL, Albertsen PC, Moore DF etal. Outcomes of localized prostate cancer following conservative management. JAMA 2009; 302: 1202-9.
3. Agarwal PK, Sadetsky N, Konety BR, Resnick MI, Carroll PR. Treatment failure after primary and salvage therapy for prostate cancer: likelihood, patterns of care, and outcomes. Cancer 2008; 112: 307-14.
4. Cagiannos I, Karakiewicz P, Eastham JA etal. A preoperative nomogram identifying decreased risk of positive pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer. J. Urol. 2003; 170: 1798-803.
5. Koh H, Kattan MW, Scardino PT etal. A nomogram to predict seminal vesicle invasion by the extent and location of cancer in systematic biopsy results. J. Urol. 2003; 170: 1203-8.
6. Makarov DV, Trock BJ, Humphreys EB etal. 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: 1095-101.
7. Ohori M, Kattan MW, Koh H etal. Predicting the presence and side of extracapsular extension: a nomogram for staging prostate cancer. J. Urol. 2004; 171: 1844-9; discussion 1849.
8. Partin AW, Yoo J, Carter HB etal. 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: 110-14.
9. Cooperberg MR, Freedland SJ, Pasta DJ etal. Multiinstitutional validation of the UCSF cancer of the prostate risk assessment for prediction of recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Cancer 2006; 107: 2384-91.
10. Won YJ, Sung J, Jung KW etal. Nationwide cancer incidence in Korea, 2003-2005. Cancer Res. Treat. 2009; 41: 122-31.
11. Samaratunga H, Montironi R, True L etal. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 1: specimen handling. Mod. Pathol. 2011; 24: 6-15.
12. Berney DM, Wheeler TM, Grignon DJ etal. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 4: seminal vesicles and lymph nodes. Mod. Pathol. 2011; 24: 39-47.
13. Magi-Galluzzi C, Evans AJ, Delahunt B etal. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 3: extraprostatic extension, lymphovascular invasion and locally advanced disease. Mod. Pathol. 2011; 24: 26-38.
14. Harrell FE Jr, Lee KL, Mark DB. Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat. Med. 1996; 15: 361-87.
15. Harrell FE Jr, Califf RM, Pryor DB, Lee KL, Rosati RA. Evaluating the yield of medical tests. JAMA 1982; 247: 2543-6.
16. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 1983; 148: 839-43.
17. Vickers AJ, Elkin EB. Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med. Decis. Making 2006; 26: 565-74.
18. Steyerberg EW, Vickers AJ. Decision curve analysis: a discussion. Med. Decis. Making 2008; 28: 146-9.
19. Partin AW, Kattan MW, Subong EN etal. 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: 1445-51.
20. 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: 4400-7.
21. Ku JH, Ahn JO, Lee CH etal. Distribution of serum prostate-specific antigen in healthy Korean men: influence of ethnicity. Urology 2002; 60: 475-9.
22. Ku JH, Jeong CW, Park YH, Cho MC, Kwak C, Kim HH. Biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy with or without pelvic lymphadenectomy in Korean men with high-risk prostate cancer. Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol. 2011; 41: 656-62.
23. Raymundo EM, Rice KR, Chen Y, Zhao J, Brassell SA. Prostate cancer in Asian Americans: incidence, management and outcomes in an equal access healthcare system. BJU Int. 2011; 107: 1216-22.
24. Mao X, Yu Y, Boyd LK etal. Distinct genomic alterations in prostate cancers in Chinese and Western populations suggest alternative pathways of prostate carcinogenesis. Cancer Res. 2010; 70: 5207-12.
25. Misumi T, Yamamoto Y, Murakami T etal. Genetic alterations at 13q14 may correlate with differences in the biological behavior of prostate cancer between Japanese and Caucasian men. Urol. Int. 2010; 84: 461-6.
26. Briganti A, Blute ML, Eastham JH etal. Pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 2009; 55: 1251-65.
27. Naito S, Kuroiwa K, Kinukawa N etal. 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: 904-9; discussion 909-10.
28. Satake N, Ohori M, Yu C etal. Development and internal validation of a nomogram predicting extracapsular extension in radical prostatectomy specimens. Int. J. Urol. 2010; 17: 267-72.
29. Ohori M, Kattan MW, Yu C etal. Nomogram to predict seminal vesicle invasion using the status of cancer at the base of the prostate on systematic biopsy. Int. J. Urol. 2010; 17: 534-40.
30. Zam NA, Tan PH, Sim HG, Lau WK, Yip SK, Cheng CW. Correlation between prostate needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens: can we predict pathological outcome? Pathology 2008; 40: 586-91.
31. Park EA, Lee HJ, Kim KG, Kim SH, Lee SE, Choe GY. Prediction of pathological stages before prostatectomy in prostate cancer patients: analysis of 12 systematic prostate needle biopsy specimens. Int. J. Urol. 2007; 14: 704-8.
32. Epstein JI. Prognostic significance of tumor volume in radical prostatectomy and needle biopsy specimens. J. Urol. 2011; 186: 790-7.