Predictors of Gleason Score (GS) upgrading on subsequent prostatectomy: a single Institution study in a cohort of patients with GS 6

International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Pathology

Volumn 5, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 496-502

  Mehta, Vikas ^a   Rycyna, Kevin ^a   Baesens, Bart M M ^b   Barkan, Güliz A ^a   Paner, Gladell P ^a,c   Flanigan, Robert C ^a   Wojcik, Eva M ^a   Venkataraman, Girish ^a  

^a LOYOLA UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Binary recursive partitioning; Carcinoma; Prostate pathology predictive modeling; Statistical techniques logistic regression

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADENOCARCINOMA; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BIOPSY; BLOOD; CANCER GRADING; CANCER INVASION; COHORT ANALYSIS; DECISION TREE; HUMAN; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; PREOPERATIVE PERIOD; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATE TUMOR; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ADENOCARCINOMA; ADULT; AGED; BIOPSY; COHORT STUDIES; DECISION TREES; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; NEOPLASM INVASIVENESS; PREOPERATIVE PERIOD; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 84865973640     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19362625     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. King CR, McNeal JE, Gill H and Presti JC, Jr. Extended prostate biopsy scheme improves reliability of Gleason grading: implications for radiotherapy patients. International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics 2004; 59: 386-391.
2. King CR. Patterns of prostate cancer biopsy grading: trends and clinical implications. International journal of cancer. Journal international du cancer 2000; 90: 305-311.
3. Cam K, Yucel S, Turkeri L and Akdas A. Accuracy of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy: histopathological correlation to matched prostatectomy specimens. International journal of urology: official journal of the Japanese Urological Association 2002; 9: 257-260.
4. King CR and Long JP. Prostate biopsy grading errors: a sampling problem? International journal of cancer. Journal international du cancer 2000; 90: 326-330.
5. Mian BM, Lehr DJ, Moore CK, Fisher HA, Kaufman RP, Jr, Ross JS, Jennings TA and Nazeer T. Role of prostate biopsy schemes in accurate prediction of Gleason scores. Urology 2006; 67: 379-383.
6. Chun FK, Briganti A, Shariat SF, Graefen M, Montorsi F, Erbersdobler A, Steuber T, Salonia A, Currlin E, Scattoni V, Friedrich MG, Schlomm T, Haese A, Michl U, Colombo R, Heinzer H, Valiquette L, Rigatti P, Roehrborn CG, Huland H and Karakiewicz PI. Significant upgrading affects a third of men diagnosed with prostate cancer: predictive nomogram and internal validation. BJU international 2006; 98: 329-334.
7. Chun FK, Steuber T, Erbersdobler A, Currlin E, Walz J, Schlomm T, Haese A, Heinzer H, Mc-Cormack M, Huland H, Graefen M and Karakiewicz PI. Development and internal validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of prostate cancer Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology. European urology 2006; 49: 820-826.
8. D'Amico AV, Renshaw AA, Arsenault L, Schultz D and Richie JP. 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. International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics 1999; 45: 841-846.
9. Capitanio U, Karakiewicz PI, Valiquette L, Perrotte P, Jeldres C, Briganti A, Gallina A, Suardi N, Cestari A, Guazzoni G, Salonia A and Montorsi F. Biopsy core number represents one of foremost predictors of clinically significant gleason sum upgrading in patients with lowrisk prostate cancer. Urology 2009; 73: 1087-1091.
10. Ian H, Witten EF. Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques. San Fransisco: Morgan Kaufmann 2005.
11. Quinlan JR. C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning. San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann 1993.
12. Cooperberg MR, Lubeck DP, Mehta SS and Carroll PR. Time trends in clinical risk stratification for prostate cancer: implications for outcomes (data from CaPSURE). The Journal of urology 2003; 170: S21-25; discussion S26-27.
13. Pound CR, Partin AW, Eisenberger MA, Chan DW, Pearson JD and Walsh PC. Natural history of progression after PSA elevation following radical prostatectomy. JAMA: the journal of the American Medical Association 1999; 281: 1591-1597.
14. Freedland SJ, Humphreys EB, Mangold LA, Eisenberger M, Dorey FJ, Walsh PC and Partin AW. Risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality following biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. JAMA: the journal of the American Medical Association 2005; 294: 433-439.
15. D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Wu YH, Chen MH, Hurwitz M, Kantoff PW, Tomaszewski JE, Renshaw AA, Wein A and Richie JP. Utilizing predictions of early prostate-specific antigen failure to optimize patient selection for adjuvant systemic therapy trials. Journal of clinical oncology: official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2000; 18: 3240-3246.
16. D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Schultz D, Schnall M, Tomaszewski JE and Wein A. A multivariate analysis of clinical and pathological factors that predict for prostate specific antigen failure after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. The Journal of urology 1995; 154: 131-138.
17. Pinthus JH, Witkos M, Fleshner NE, Sweet J, Evans A, Jewett MA, Krahn M, Alibhai S and Trachtenberg J. Prostate cancers scored as Gleason 6 on prostate biopsy are frequently Gleason 7 tumors at radical prostatectomy: implication on outcome. The Journal of urology 2006; 176: 979-984; discussion 984.
18. King CR, McNeal JE, Gill H, Brooks JD, Srinivas S and Presti JC, Jr. Reliability of small amounts of cancer in prostate biopsies to reveal pathologic grade. Urology 2006; 67: 1229-1234.
19. Magheli A, Hinz S, Hege C, Stephan C, Jung K, Miller K and Lein M. Prostate specific antigen density to predict prostate cancer upgrading in a contemporary radical prostatectomy series: a single center experience. The Journal of urology 2010; 183: 126-131.
20. Visapaa H, Hotakainen K, Lundin J, Ala-Opas M and Stenman UH. The proportion of free PSA and upgrading of biopsy Gleason score after radical prostatectomy. Urologia internationalis 2010; 84: 378-381.
21. Tilki D, Schlenker B, John M, Buchner A, Stanislaus P, Gratzke C, Karl A, Tan GY, Ergun S, Tewari AK, Stief CG, Seitz M and Reich O. Clinical and pathologic predictors of Gleason sum upgrading in patients after radical prostatectomy: results from a single institution series. Urologic oncology 2011; 29: 508-514.
22. Moussa AS, Kattan MW, Berglund R, Yu C, Fareed K and Jones JS. A nomogram for predicting upgrading in patients with low- and intermediate-grade prostate cancer in the era of extended prostate sampling. BJU international 2010; 105: 352-358.
23. King CR, Patel DA and Terris MK. Prostate biopsy volume indices do not predict for significant Gleason upgrading. American journal of clinical oncology 2005; 28: 125-129.
24. Kulkarni GS, Lockwood G, Evans A, Toi A, Trachtenberg J, Jewett MA, Finelli A and Fleshner NE. Clinical predictors of Gleason score upgrading: implications for patients considering watchful waiting, active surveillance, or brachytherapy. Cancer 2007; 109: 2432-2438.
25. Moussa AS, Li J, Soriano M, Klein EA, Dong F and Jones JS. Prostate biopsy clinical and pathological variables that predict significant grading changes in patients with intermediate and high grade prostate cancer. BJU international 2009; 103: 43-48.
26. Thomas C, Pfirrmann K, Pieles F, Bogumil A, Gillitzer R, Wiesner C, Thuroff JW and Melchior SW. Predictors for clinically relevant Gleason score upgrade in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. BJU international 2012; 109: 214-219