Prostate cancer collaborative stage data items-their definitions, quality, usage, and clinical implications: A review of seer data for 2004-2010

Cancer

Volumn 120, Issue S23, 2014, Pages 3758-3770

  Schymura, Maria J ^a   Sun, Leon ^b   Percy Laurry, Antoinette ^b  

^a NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH   (United States)

^b NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

American Joint Committee on Cancer staging; Collaborative stage; Gleason score; Prognosis; Prostate cancer; Prostate specific antigen; TNM stage

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; KALLIKREIN; KALLIKREIN-RELATED PEPTIDASE 3, HUMAN;

AUTOPSY; BLADDER NECK; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER GRADING; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER STAGING; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NEEDLE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; REVIEW; SCORING SYSTEM; TRANSURETHRAL RESECTION; TUMOR BIOPSY; TUMOR INVASION; TUMOR VOLUME; ADENOCARCINOMA; BLOOD; CANCER REGISTRY; CARCINOID; CARCINOMA; CARCINOSARCOMA; COHORT ANALYSIS; LYMPH NODE; MIXED MULLERIAN TUMOR; PATHOLOGY; PROSTATE TUMOR; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; TRENDS;

ADENOCARCINOMA; CARCINOID TUMOR; CARCINOMA; CARCINOSARCOMA; COHORT STUDIES; HUMANS; KALLIKREINS; LYMPH NODES; MALE; MIXED TUMOR, MULLERIAN; NEOPLASM GRADING; NEOPLASM STAGING; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SEER PROGRAM; TUMOR BURDEN;

EID: 84911932661     PISSN: 0008543X     EISSN: 10970142     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.29052     Document Type: Review

References (32)

1. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2014. American Cancer Society. Available at: http://www.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/ cancerfactsfigures2014. Accessed on October 3, 2014
2. Jemal A, Simard EP, Dorell C, et al. Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, 1975-2009, featuring the burden and trends in human papillomavirus(HPV)-associated cancers and HPV vaccination coverage levels. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105:175-201
3. Hankey BF, Feuer EJ, Clegg LX, et al. Cancer surveillance series: interpreting trends in prostate cancer-part I: evidence of the effects of screening in recent prostate cancer incidence, mortality, and survival rates. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999;91:1017-1024
4. Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, et al, eds. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 7th ed. American Joint Committee on Cancer. Chicago: Springer-Verlag; 2010.
5. Collaborative Stage Work Group of the American Joint Committee on Cancer. Collaborative Stage Data Collection System User Documentation and Coding Instructions. Version 02.04.40, Part I, Section 2. Chicago, IL: American Joint Committee on Cancer; 2011: 109-116
6. American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer. Facility Oncology Registry Data Standards: Revised for 2007 (FORDS). American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer; 2002 (updated 2007). Available at: http://www.facs.org/cancer/coc/fords/2007/fordsrevised2007. pdf. Accessed August 21, 2013.
7. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program. SEER Site recode. Available at: http://seer.cancer.gov/siterecode/icdo3-d01272003/. Accessed August 6, 2013
8. Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID, et al, eds. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 6th ed. American Joint Committee on Cancer. Chicago: Springer-Verlag; 2002.
9. Johnson CH, ed. SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2004, Revision 1, Part 3: C50.0 - C80.9. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, NIH Publication number 04-5581; 2004:C551-C564
10. Fritz A, Ries L. The SEER Program Code Manual. 3rd ed. 1998:108. Available at: http://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/codeman.pdf. Accessed August 6, 2013
11. Collaborative Stage Data Collection System, Version 2. Prostate, C61.9. Available at: http://web2.facs.org/cstage0204/prostate/Prostateschema. html. Accessed August 6, 2013.
12. Thompson I, Thrasher JB, Aus G, et al; Prostate Cancer Clinical Guideline Update Panel. Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update. J Urol. 2007;177:2106-2131
13. Eggener SE, Mueller A, Berglund RK, et al. A multi-institutional evaluation of active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2013;189(1 Suppl):S19-S25; discussion S25
14. Tsivian M, Sun L, Mouraviev V, et al. Changes in Gleason score grading and their effect in predicting outcome after radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2009;74:1090-1093
15. Delahunt B, Miller RJ, Strigley JR, Evans AJ, Samaratunga H. Gleason grading: past, present, and future. Histopathology. 2012;60:75-86
16. Patel AA, Chen MH, Renshaw AA, D'Amico AV. PSA failure following definitive treatment of prostate cancer having biopsy Gleason score 7 with tertiary grade 5. JAMA. 2007;298:1533-1538
17. D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1998;280:969-974
18. Hernandez DJ, Nielsen ME, Han M, Partin AW. Contemporary evaluation of the D'Amico risk classification of prostate cancer. Urology. 2007;70:931-935
19. Boorjian SA, Karnes RJ, Rangel LJ, Bergstralh EJ, Blute ML. Mayo Clinic validation of the D'Amico risk group classification for predicting survival following radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2008;179: 1354-1361
20. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical practiceguidelines in oncology: prostate cancer. Version 2.2013. National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc.; 2013.
21. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program (http:// www.seer.cancer.gov) SEER.∗Stat Database: Incidence - SEER 18 Regs Research Data1Hurricane Katrina Impacted Louisiana Cases, Nov 2012 Sub (1973-2010 varying) - Linked to County Attributes - Total U.S., 1969-2011 Counties, National Cancer Institute, DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program, Surveillance Systems Branch, released April 2013, based on the November 2012 submission
22. Collaborative Stage Version 2 Field Study Team. 2011 CSV2 Reliability Study Final Report. Available at: http://cancerstaging.org/ sites/csqatest/about/news/Pages/CSv02.05-Reliability-Study-Final- Report-.aspx. Accessed January 8, 2014
23. Shah SK, Fleet TM, Williams V, Smith AY, Skipper B, Wiggins C. SEER coding standards result in underestimation of positive surgical margin incidence at radical prostatectomy: results of a systematic audit. J Urol. 2011;186:855-859
24. Greene KL, Albertsen PC, Babaian RJ, et al. American Urological Association. Prostate specific antigen best practice statement: 2009 update. J Urol. 2009;182:2232-2241
25. Thompson IM, Pauler DK, Goodman PJ, et al. Prevalence of prostate-specific antigen level < 4.0 ng per milliliter. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2239-2246
26. Thompson IM, Ankerst DP, Chi C, et al. Operating characteristics of prostate-specific antigen in men with an initial PSA level of 3.0 ng/mL or lower. JAMA. 2005;294:66-70
27. Moyer VA. Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:120-134
28. Asire A, Lyles B, Cicero BJ, et al. The SEER Program Code Manual. 1988:80. Available at: http://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/historic/ codeman-1988.pdf. Accessed August 9, 2013
29. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC, Amin MB, Egevad LL; ISUP Grading Committee. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:1228-1242
30. Loeb S, Roehl KA, Thaxton CS, Catalona WJ. Combined prostatespecific antigen density and biopsy features to predict "clinically insignificant" prostate cancer. Urology. 2008;72:143-147
31. Stephenson AJ, Scardino PT, Eastham JA, et al. Preoperative nomogram predicting the 10- year probability of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:715-717
32. Bjurlin MA, Carter HB, Schellhammer P, et al. Optimization of initial prostate biopsy in clinical practice: sampling, labeling, and specimen processing. J Urol. 2013;189:2039-2046.