Development and External Validation of an Extended Repeat Biopsy Nomogram
2007; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 177; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1016/j.juro.2006.09.025
ISSN1527-3792
AutoresFelix K.‐H. Chun, Alberto Briganti, Markus Graefen, Christopher R. Porter, Francesco Montorsi, Alexander Haese, Vincenzo Scattoni, Lester S. Borden, Thomas Steuber, Andrea Salonia, Thorsten Schlomm, Kalyan Latchemsetty, Jochen Walz, Jason Kim, Christian Eichelberg, Eike Currlin, Sascha Ahyai, Andreas Erbersdobler, Luc Valiquette, Hans Heinzer, Patrizio Rigatti, Hartwig Huland, Pierre I. Karakiewicz,
Tópico(s)Viral-associated cancers and disorders
ResumoNo AccessJournal of UrologyAdult urology1 Feb 2007Development and External Validation of an Extended Repeat Biopsy Nomogram Felix K.-H. Chun, Alberto Briganti, Markus Graefen, Christopher Porter, Francesco Montorsi, Alexander Haese, Vincenzo Scattoni, Lester Borden, Thomas Steuber, Andrea Salonia, Thorsten Schlomm, Kalyan Latchemsetty, Jochen Walz, Jason Kim, Christian Eichelberg, Eike Currlin, Sascha A. Ahyai, Andreas Erbersdobler, Luc Valiquette, Hans Heinzer, Patrizio Rigatti, Hartwig Huland, and Pierre I. Karakiewicz Felix K.-H. ChunFelix K.-H. Chun Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada , Alberto BrigantiAlberto Briganti Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada , Markus GraefenMarkus Graefen Martini Clinic-Prostate Cancer Center, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany , Christopher PorterChristopher Porter Section of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington , Francesco MontorsiFrancesco Montorsi Department of Urology, Vita-Salute University, Milan, Italy , Alexander HaeseAlexander Haese Department of Urology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany , Vincenzo ScattoniVincenzo Scattoni Department of Urology, Vita-Salute University, Milan, Italy , Lester BordenLester Borden Section of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington , Thomas SteuberThomas Steuber Department of Urology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany , Andrea SaloniaAndrea Salonia Department of Urology, Vita-Salute University, Milan, Italy , Thorsten SchlommThorsten Schlomm Department of Urology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany , Kalyan LatchemsettyKalyan Latchemsetty Section of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington , Jochen WalzJochen Walz Department of Urology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany , Jason KimJason Kim Section of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington , Christian EichelbergChristian Eichelberg Department of Urology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany , Eike CurrlinEike Currlin Department of Urology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany , Sascha A. AhyaiSascha A. Ahyai Department of Urology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany , Andreas ErbersdoblerAndreas Erbersdobler Department of Pathology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany , Luc ValiquetteLuc Valiquette Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada , Hans HeinzerHans Heinzer Martini Clinic-Prostate Cancer Center, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany Department of Urology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany , Patrizio RigattiPatrizio Rigatti Department of Urology, Vita-Salute University, Milan, Italy , Hartwig HulandHartwig Huland Department of Urology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany , and Pierre I. KarakiewiczPierre I. Karakiewicz Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.09.025AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Purpose: We hypothesized that the outcome of repeat biopsy could be accurately predicted. We tested this hypothesis in a contemporary cohort from 3 centers. Materials and Methods: The principal cohort of 1,082 men from Hamburg, Germany was used for nomogram development as well as for internal 200 bootstrap validation in 721 and external validation in 361. Two additional external validation cohorts, including 87 men from Milan, Italy and 142 from Seattle, Washington, were also used. Predictors of prostate cancer on repeat biopsy were patient age, digital rectal examination, prostate specific antigen, percent free prostate specific antigen, number of previous negative biopsy sessions and sampling density. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to develop the nomograms. Results: The mean number of previous negative biopsies was 1.5 (range 1 to 6) and the mean number of cores at final repeat biopsy was 11.1 (range 10 to 24). Of the men 370 (30.2%) had prostate cancer. On multivariate analyses all predictors were statistically significant (p ≤0.028). After internal validation the nomogram was 76% accurate. External validation showed 74% (Hamburg), 78% (Milan) and 68% (Seattle) accuracy. Conclusions: Relative to the previous nomograms (10 predictors or 71% accuracy) our tool relies on fewer variables (6) and shows superior accuracy in European men. Accuracy in American men is substantially lower. Racial, clinical and biochemical differences may explain the observed discrepancy in predictive accuracy. References 1 : Trends in the leading causes of death in the United States, 1970–2002. JAMA2005; 294: 1255. Google Scholar 2 : Extensive repeat transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy in patients with previous benign sextant biopsies. J Urol2000; 163: 158. Link, Google Scholar 3 : Optimal predictors of prostate cancer on repeat prostate biopsy: a prospective study in 1,051 men. J Urol2000; 163: 1144. Link, Google Scholar 4 : Prostate cancer diagnosis using a saturation needle biopsy technique after previous negative sextant biopsies. J Urol2001; 166: 86. Link, Google Scholar 5 : Prostate cancer detection with office based saturation biopsy in a repeat biopsy population. J Urol2004; 172: 94. Link, Google Scholar 6 : Role of "saturation biopsy" in the detection of prostate cancer among difficult diagnostic cases. Urology2002; 60: 93. Google Scholar 7 : A nomogram for predicting a positive repeat prostate biopsy in patients with a previous negative biopsy session. J Urol2003; 170: 1184. Link, Google Scholar 8 : Validation of a nomogram for predicting positive repeat biopsy for prostate cancer. J Urol2005; 173: 421. Link, Google Scholar 9 : Systematic 5 region prostate biopsy is superior to sextant method for diagnosing carcinoma of the prostate. J Urol1997; 157: 199. Link, Google Scholar 10 : The accuracy of the increased prostate specific antigen level (greater than or equal to 20 ng./ml.) in predicting prostate cancer: is biopsy always required?. J Urol2002; 168: 1990. Link, Google Scholar 11 : Clinical management of premalignant lesions of the prostate: WHO Collaborative Project and Consensus Conference Public Health and Clinical Significance of Premalignant Alterations in the Genitourinary Tract. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl2000; 205: 44. Google Scholar 12 : Analysis of repeated biopsy results within 1 year after a noncancer diagnosis. Urology2000; 55: 553. Google Scholar 13 : An artificial neural network to predict the outcome of repeat prostate biopsies. Urology2003; 62: 456. Google Scholar 14 : The influence of prostate size on cancer detection. Urology1995; 46: 831. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 15 : Can total and transition zone volume of the prostate determine whether to perform a repeat biopsy?. Urology2003; 61: 161. Google Scholar 16 : The Vienna nomogram: validation of a novel biopsy strategy defining the optimal number of cores based on patient age and total prostate volume. J Urol2005; 174: 1256. Link, Google Scholar 17 : Development of a nomogram to predict probability of positive initial prostate biopsy among Japanese patients. Urology2006; 67: 131. Google Scholar 18 : The pathological interpretation and significance of prostate needle biopsy findings: implications and current controversies. J Urol2001; 166: 402. Link, Google Scholar 19 : Monofocal and plurifocal high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia on extended prostate biopsies: factors predicting cancer detection on extended repeat biopsy. Urology2004; 63: 1105. Google Scholar 20 : Predicting nonsentinel node status after positive sentinel lymph biopsy for breast cancer: clinicians versus nomogram. Ann Surg Oncol2005; 12: 654. Google Scholar © 2007 by American Urological AssociationFiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byLotan Y, Stovsky M, Rochelle R and Klein E (2020) Decision Analysis Model Comparing Cost of IsoPSA™ vs Repeat Biopsy for Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Men with Previous Negative Findings on BiopsyUrology Practice, VOL. 8, NO. 1, (40-46), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2021.Ankerst D, Groskopf J, Day J, Blase A, Rittenhouse H, Pollock B, Tangen C, Parekh D, Leach R and Thompson I (2008) Predicting Prostate Cancer Risk Through Incorporation of Prostate Cancer Gene 3Journal of Urology, VOL. 180, NO. 4, (1303-1308), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2008. Volume 177Issue 2February 2007Page: 510-515 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2007 by American Urological AssociationKeywordsprostatic neoplasmsbiopsyprostatenomogramsMetricsAuthor Information Felix K.-H. Chun Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada Equal study contribution. More articles by this author Alberto Briganti Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada Equal study contribution. More articles by this author Markus Graefen Martini Clinic-Prostate Cancer Center, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany More articles by this author Christopher Porter Section of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington More articles by this author Francesco Montorsi Department of Urology, Vita-Salute University, Milan, Italy More articles by this author Alexander Haese Department of Urology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany More articles by this author Vincenzo Scattoni Department of Urology, Vita-Salute University, Milan, Italy More articles by this author Lester Borden Section of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington More articles by this author Thomas Steuber Department of Urology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany More articles by this author Andrea Salonia Department of Urology, Vita-Salute University, Milan, Italy More articles by this author Thorsten Schlomm Department of Urology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany More articles by this author Kalyan Latchemsetty Section of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington More articles by this author Jochen Walz Department of Urology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany More articles by this author Jason Kim Section of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington More articles by this author Christian Eichelberg Department of Urology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany More articles by this author Eike Currlin Department of Urology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany More articles by this author Sascha A. Ahyai Department of Urology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany More articles by this author Andreas Erbersdobler Department of Pathology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany More articles by this author Luc Valiquette Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada More articles by this author Hans Heinzer Martini Clinic-Prostate Cancer Center, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany Department of Urology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany More articles by this author Patrizio Rigatti Department of Urology, Vita-Salute University, Milan, Italy More articles by this author Hartwig Huland Department of Urology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany More articles by this author Pierre I. Karakiewicz Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Referência(s)