Development and multi-institutional validation of an upgrading risk tool for Gleason 6 prostate cancer

Cancer

Volumn 119, Issue 22, 2013, Pages 3992-4002

  Truong, Matthew ^a   Slezak, Jon A ^a   Lin, Chee Paul ^b   Iremashvili, Viacheslav ^c   Sado, Martins ^a   Razmaria, Aria A ^d   Leverson, Glen ^b   Soloway, Mark S ^c   Eggener, Scott E ^d   Jason Abel, E ^a   Downs, Tracy M ^a   Jarrard, David F ^a  

^a University of Wisconsin Health   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

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

^d UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

active surveillance; low risk prostate cancer; prostate specific antigen

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; ARTICLE; BIOPSY INTEGRATED ALGORITHM FOR DETERMINING GLEASON 6 UPGRADING RISK; CALIBRATION; CANCER GRADING; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NOMOGRAM; OBESITY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATE SIZE; PROSTATE WEIGHT; PROSTATECTOMY; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; RISK ASSESSMENT; TRANSRECTAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY; TUMOR VOLUME; VALIDATION STUDY;

ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE; LOW-RISK PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ALGORITHMS; BIOPSY; HUMANS; KALLIKREINS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; NEOPLASM GRADING; PROBABILITY; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 84887106088     PISSN: 0008543X     EISSN: 10970142     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.28303     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Miller DC, Gruber SB, Hollenbeck BK, Montie JE, Wei JT,. Incidence of initial local therapy among men with lower-risk prostate cancer in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006; 98: 1134-1141.
2. El Hajj A, Ploussard G, de la Taille A, et al. Analysis of outcomes after radical prostatectomy in patients eligible for active surveillance (PRIAS). BJU Int. 2013; 111: 53-59.
3. Chun FK, Steuber T, Erbersdobler A, et al. Development and internal validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of prostate cancer Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology. Eur Urol. 2006; 49: 820-826.
4. Pinthus JH, Witkos M, Fleshner NE, et al. Prostate cancers scored as Gleason 6 on prostate biopsy are frequently Gleason 7 tumors at radical prostatectomy: implication on outcome. J Urol. 2006; 176: 979-984.
5. Epstein JI, Feng Z, Trock BJ, Pierorazio PM,. Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades. Eur Urol. 2012; 61: 1019-1024.
6. Eggener SE, Scardino PT, Walsh PC, et al. Predicting 15-year prostate cancer specific mortality after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2011; 185: 869-875.
7. Iremashvili V, Manoharan M, Pelaez L, Rosenberg DL, Soloway MS,. Clinically significant Gleason sum upgrade: external validation and head-to-head comparison of the existing nomograms. Cancer. 2012; 118: 378-385.
8. 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.
9. Kassouf W, Nakanishi H, Ochiai A, Babaian KN, Troncoso P, Babaian RJ,. Effect of prostate volume on tumor grade in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy in the era of extended prostatic biopsies. J Urol. 2007; 178: 111-114.
10. Tilki D, Schlenker B, John M, et al. Clinical and pathologic predictors of Gleason sum upgrading in patients after radical prostatectomy: Results from a single institution series. Urol Oncol. 2011; 29: 508-514.
11. Oh JJ, Hong SK, Lee JK, et al. Prostate-specific antigen vs prostate-specific antigen density as a predictor of upgrading in men diagnosed with Gleason 6 prostate cancer by contemporary multicore prostate biopsy. BJU Int. 2012; 110: E494-E499.
12. Davies JD, Aghazadeh MA, Phillips S, et al. Prostate size as a predictor of Gleason score upgrading in patients with low risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2011; 186: 2221-2227.
13. Rubin DB,. Multiple imputation after 18+ years. J Am Stat Assoc. 1996; 91: 473-489.
14. Vickers AJ, Elkin EB,. Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med Decis Making. 2006; 26: 565-574.
15. Iremashvili V, Pelaez L, Manoharan M, Jorda M, Rosenberg DL, Soloway MS,. Pathologic prostate cancer characteristics in patients eligible for active surveillance: a head-to-head comparison of contemporary protocols. Eur Urol. 2012; 62: 462-468.
16. 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.
17. van den Bergh RC, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, et al. Outcomes of men with screen-detected prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance who were managed expectantly. Eur Urol. 2009; 55: 1-8.
18. Whitson JM, Porten SP, Hilton JF, et al. The relationship between prostate specific antigen change and biopsy progression in patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer. J Urol. 2011; 185: 1656-1660.
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. Gershman B, Dahl DM, Olumi AF, Young RH, McDougal WS, Wu CL,. Smaller prostate gland size and older age predict Gleason score upgrading. Urol Oncol. 2011;doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2011.11.032.
21. Su LJ, Arab L, Steck SE, et al. Obesity and prostate cancer aggressiveness among African and Caucasian Americans in a population-based study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2011; 20: 844-853.
22. 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.
23. Freedland SJ, Isaacs WB, Platz EA, et al. Prostate size and risk of high-grade, advanced prostate cancer and biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy: a search database study. J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23: 7546-7554.
24. Liu JJ, Brooks JD, Ferrari M, Nolley R, Presti JC,. Small prostate size and high grade disease - biology or artifact? J Urol. 2011; 185: 2108-2111.
25. Loeb S, Han M, Roehl KA, Antenor JA, Catalona WJ,. Accuracy of prostate weight estimation by digital rectal examination versus transrectal ultrasonography. J Urol. 2005; 173: 63-65.
26. Capitanio U, Karakiewicz PI, Jeldres C, et al. The probability of Gleason score upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy can be accurately predicted. Int J Urol. 2009; 16: 526-529.
27. Imamoto T, Suzuki H, Utsumi T, et al. External validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of prostate cancer Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology among Japanese patients. Urology. 2010; 76: 404-410.
28. Capitanio U, Karakiewicz PI, Valiquette L, et al. Biopsy core number represents one of foremost predictors of clinically significant gleason sum upgrading in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Urology. 2009; 73: 1087-1091.
29. 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.
30. 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.