Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Comparison of Accuracy Between the Partin Tables Of 1997 and 2001 to Predict Final Pathological Stage in Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer

2004; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 171; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1097/01.ju.0000099827.77355.a7

1527-3792

Herbert Augustin, Thilo Eggert, Sven Wenske, Pierre I. Karakiewicz, Jüri Palisaar, Fedor Daghofer, Hartwig Huland, Markus Graefen,

Prostate Cancer Treatment and Research

No AccessJournal of UrologyCLINICAL UROLOGY: Original Articles1 Jan 2004Comparison of Accuracy Between the Partin Tables Of 1997 and 2001 to Predict Final Pathological Stage in Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer HERBERT AUGUSTIN, THILO EGGERT, SVEN WENSKE, PIERRE I. KARAKIEWICZ, JÜRI PALISAAR, FEDOR DAGHOFER, HARTWIG HULAND, and MARKUS GRAEFEN HERBERT AUGUSTINHERBERT AUGUSTIN , THILO EGGERTTHILO EGGERT , SVEN WENSKESVEN WENSKE , PIERRE I. KARAKIEWICZPIERRE I. KARAKIEWICZ , JÜRI PALISAARJÜRI PALISAAR , FEDOR DAGHOFERFEDOR DAGHOFER , HARTWIG HULANDHARTWIG HULAND , and MARKUS GRAEFENMARKUS GRAEFEN View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000099827.77355.a7AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Purpose: We validated externally the predictive accuracy of the 2001 Partin tables and compared the 1997 and 2001 versions. Materials and Methods: We used ROC derived AUC to test the predictive accuracy of organ confinement (OC), extraprostatic extension (ECE), seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) and lymph node involvement (LNI) of 1997 and 2001 Partin tables derived probabilities. These probabilities were defined by the pretreatment clinical stage, serum prostate specific antigen and biopsy Gleason grade of 2,139 patients treated with radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Results: OC, ECE, SVI and LNI were noted in 63.5%, 23.1%, 10.5% and 2.9% of cases, respectively. AUC of the 2001 tables was 0.787, 0.766, 0.775 and 0.790, for OC, ECE, SVI and LNI, respectively. These values were virtually the same as the respective 1997 Partin table AUC values, namely 0.784, 0.728, 0.791 and 0.799. Conclusions: This external validation of the 2001 Partin tables confirms good predictive accuracy of the updated tables. However, predictive accuracy in this external validation data set of 2,139 European men is virtually the same as that of the original 1997 tables. Therefore, a transition from the 1997 tables to the updated 2001 version does not appear warranted unless superior accuracy is demonstrated in other external cohorts. References 1 : A catalog of prostate cancer nomograms. J Urol2001; 165: 1562. Link, Google Scholar 2 : The use of prostate specific antigen, clinical stage and Gleason score to predict pathological stage in men with localized prostate cancer. J Urol1993; 150: 110. Link, Google Scholar 3 : Evaluation of a nomogram used to predict the pathologic stage of clinically localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer1997; 79: 528. Google Scholar 4 : Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update. JAMA1997; 277: 1445. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 5 : Validation of Partin tables for predicting pathological stage of clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol2000; 164: 1591. Link, Google Scholar 6 : Can predictive models for prostate cancer patients derived in the United States of America be utilized in European patients? A validation study of the Partin tables. Eur Urol2003; 43: 6. Google Scholar 7 : Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium. Urology2001; 58: 843. Google Scholar 8 : Prospective validation of an algorithm with systematic sextant biopsy to predict pelvic lymph node metastasis in patients with clinically localized prostatic carcinoma. J Urol2002; 167: 521. Link, Google Scholar 9 : Manual for Staging of Cancer: AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott1992: 181. Google Scholar 10 : Histologic grading and clinical staging of prostate carcinoma. In: Urologic Pathology: The Prostate. Edited by . Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger1977: 171. Google Scholar 11 : Zonal distribution of prostatic adenocarcinoma. Correlation with histologic pattern and direction of spread. Am J Surg Pathol1988; 12: 897. Google Scholar 12 : Stage migration in clinically localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol2000; 38: 74. Google Scholar 13 : Era specific biochemical recurrence-free survival following radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol2001; 166: 416. Link, Google Scholar 14 : Gleason score 7 prostate cancer on needle biopsy: is the prognostic difference in Gleason scores 4 + 3 and 3 + 4 independent of the number of involved cores?. J Urol2002; 167: 2440. Link, Google Scholar 15 : A preoperative nomogram for disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst1998; 90: 766. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 16 : Prognostic significance of Gleason score 3 + 4 versus Gleason score 4 + 3 tumor at radical prostatectomy. Urology2000; 56: 823. Google Scholar 17 : Primary Gleason pattern as a predictor of disease progression in gleason score 7 prostate cancer: a multivariate analysis of 823 men treated with radical prostatectomy. Am J Surg Pathol2001; 25: 657. Google Scholar 18 : Correlation between Gleason score of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen: accuracy and clinical implications. J Urol1997; 157: 559. Link, Google Scholar 19 : How well does the Partin nomogram predict pathological stage after radical prostatectomy in a community based population? Results of the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urological Research Endeavor. J Urol2002; 167: 1653. Link, Google Scholar 20 : An artificial neural network for prostate cancer staging when serum prostate specific antigen is 10 ng./ml. or less. J Urol2003; 169: 1724. Link, Google Scholar From the Departments of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf (HA, TE, SW, JP, HH, MG), University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany, Karl-Franzens-University Graz (HA, FD), Graz, Austria, and Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Montréal (PIK), Montréal, Québec, Canada© 2004 by American Urological Association, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byvon Bodman C, Brock M, Roghmann F, Byers A, Löppenberg B, Braun K, Pastor J, Sommerer F, Noldus J and Palisaar R (2013) Intraoperative Frozen Section of the Prostate Decreases Positive Margin Rate While Ensuring Nerve Sparing Procedure During Radical ProstatectomyJournal of Urology, VOL. 190, NO. 2, (515-520), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2013.Yu J, Makarov D, Sharma R, Peschel R, Partin A and Gross C (2009) Validation of the Partin Nomogram for Prostate Cancer in a National SampleJournal of Urology, VOL. 183, NO. 1, (105-111), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2010.Naito S, Kuroiwa K, Kinukawa N, Goto K, Koga H, Ogawa O, Murai M and Shiraishi T (2008) 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 CancerJournal of Urology, VOL. 180, NO. 3, (904-910), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2008.Steuber T, Graefen M, Haese A, Erbersdobler A, Chun F, Schlom T, Perrotte P, Huland H and Karakiewicz P (2018) Validation of a Nomogram for Prediction of Side Specific Extracapsular Extension at Radical ProstatectomyJournal of Urology, VOL. 175, NO. 3, (939-944), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2006. Volume 171Issue 1January 2004Page: 177-181 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2004 by American Urological Association, Inc.Keywordsprostatectomypredictive value of testsprostateprostatic neoplasmsMetricsAuthor Information HERBERT AUGUSTIN More articles by this author THILO EGGERT More articles by this author SVEN WENSKE More articles by this author PIERRE I. KARAKIEWICZ More articles by this author JÜRI PALISAAR More articles by this author FEDOR DAGHOFER More articles by this author HARTWIG HULAND More articles by this author MARKUS GRAEFEN More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...