External validation of a nomogram for identification of pathologically favorable disease in intermediate risk prostate cancer patients

Beauval, J.B.; Gandaglia, Giorgio; Patard, P.; Ouzzane, A.; Taille, Alexandre de la; Soulié, M.; Briganti, Alberto; Ploussard, Guillaume; Rozet, François; Roumiguié, M.

doi:10.1002/pros.23348

Cited by 10 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…report a BCR rate of 30.9% in this series mostly composed of intermediate and high-risk patients, probably linked with a rate of positive surgical margins on the high side ofreported rates. Despite this, the 5-year BCR-free survival rates of our entire cohort and intermediate-risk, respectively equal to 70% and 74% were comparable to those of literature, probably thanks to prompt adjuvant or salvage treatment[19,20].The inaccuracy of the nomogram in our cohort was in part due to failure to detect patients with LNI, but also because many patients with a Briganti score above 5% did not happen to have LNI. With a cut-off set at 5%, half of intermediate-risk patients (N=91) would have been spared BPLND and 6 LNI (6.6%) would have been missed.…”

supporting

confidence: 73%

External evaluation of the Briganti nomogram to predict lymph node metastases in intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The Briganti nomogram can be used with a threshold of 5% to decide when to offer lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy. The objective of the study was to assess the accuracy of the Briganti nomogram on intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients managed in a single academic department. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the files of all patients managed by radical prostatectomy (RP) and bilateral pelvic lymph node dissection (BPLND) in our center between 2005 and 2017. The overall accuracy of the model in predicting metastatic lymph node disease was quantified by the construction of a receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curve. A 2 calibration plot was drawn to represent the relationship between the predicted and observed frequencies. Results: We included 285 patients, among whom 175 (61.4%) were classified as intermediate risk as defined by D'Amico. The median follow-up was 60 (34-93) months. Twenty-seven patients (9.5%) were diagnosed with lymph node metastases. The median number of lymph nodes removed was 10 (7-14). The mean Briganti score was 19.3% in patients with lymph node involvement (LNI) and 6.3% in patients without LNI. Focusing on intermediate-risk patients, 91(52%) and 84 (48%) had a Briganti score <5% and ³5%, respectively, among whom 6 (6.6%) and 7(8.3%) had lymph node metastases. The accuracy of the score was low for intermediate risk patients with an area under the curve (AUC) of 53.1% (95% CI 0.45-0.61). Conclusion: The Briganti nomogram in our retrospective cohort showed low accuracy for the prediction of lymph node involvement in an intermediate-risk prostate cancer population.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 73%

External evaluation of the Briganti nomogram to predict lymph node metastases in intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recientemente, Gandaglia en el 2017, realizó un nomograma para predecir la invasión tumoral a ganglios linfáticos, de acuerdo a un modelo multivariable incluyendo psa, estadio clínico, gleason biopsia en grado grupo, porcentaje de cores con alto grado y cores con bajo grado, con una predicción calculada de 90% que se realiza en caso de riesgo calculado mayor al 7%. [13][14][15][16][17] Un estudio colombiano multicéntrico retrospectivo en el 2016, sobre el cáncer de próstata en todos los riesgos a quienes se les realizó prostatectomía radical más linfadenectomía pelvica ampliada, con 2876 ganglios, en promedio de 20,9 ganglios por paciente, se encontraron un compromiso ganglionar del 10,22%, pero no encontraron ganglios positivos en el grupo de bajo riesgo. De los pacientes con > 2% de riesgo basado en nomogramas, solo el 19% presentó compromiso ganglionar.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Recaída bioquímica en cáncer de próstata de bajo riesgo tratados con prostatectomía radical y linfadenectomía pélvica

González

Varela

Céspedes

et al. 2019

Revista Urología Colombiana / Colombian Urology Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introducción y Objetivos La linfadenectomía pélvica ampliada es el método más confiable para identificar compromiso ganglionar en cáncer de próstata, sin embargo, la morbilidad, el tiempo quirúrgico, el papel terapéutico y las complicaciones, han sido temas de debate. El objetivo del estudio fue describir las características clínicas y patológicas de acuerdo con la presentación de recaída bioquimíca de los pacientes con cáncer de próstata de bajo riesgo tratados con prostatectomía radical más linfadenectomía pélvica ampliada. Materiales y Métodos Estudio descriptivo longitudinal retrospectivo en una cohorte de pacientes con cáncer de próstata de bajo riesgo tratados quirúrgicamente, entre enero 2006 hasta diciembre 2016. Se revisaron 210 historias clínicas, 178 cumplían los criterios de inclusión: PSA < 10 ng/mL; Gleason < 6, cT1–cT2a, revisión de las biopsias de próstata y procedimientos quirúrgicos realizados en la misma institución. Las variables a evaluar: porcentaje de compromiso tumoral, invasión linfovascular, concordancia de gleason, numero de ganglios resecados, ganglios positivos, densidad ganglionar, recaída bioquímica. Resultados 178 pacientes con: 64 años, 62% T1c, psa de 6,37, compromiso de biopsia 23%. El 47% estaban subestadificados por gleason, con un promedio de ganglios resecados de 21, el compromiso ganglionar se encontró en un 3%, los bordes positivos en un 34% y la recaída bioquímica en un 19%. De los 33 pacientes con recaída bioquímica, el 6% tenían ganglios positivos y el 79% tenían bordes positivos, comparado con los que no recayeron: el 1% tenían ganglios positivos y el 23% eran R1, mientras que la invasión linfovascular solo estuvo presente en el 6% vs el 1% sin recaída. El tiempo a la recaída fue de 26 meses. Conclusiones El compromiso ganglionar en cáncer de próstata es bajo, pero la subestadificación es alta. En el grupo de recaída bioquímica se observó que la mayoría de los pacientes presentaban bordes positivos y una subestadificacion del Gleason.

show abstract

“…Nowadays, nomograms are used for predicting extracapsular extension, and multiparametric magnetic resonance is also helpful in distinguishing low- and high-risk patients. 18 In our study, we tried to establish the cutoff value for PHI based on the postoperative GS to distinguish GS6 and GS>6 tumors. High-grade tumors (GS>6) are contraindicated for active surveillance and nerve-sparing surgery.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Ability of Prostate Health Index (PHI) to Predict Gleason Score in Patients With Prostate Cancer and Discriminate Patients Between Gleason Score 6 and Gleason Score Higher Than 6—A Study on 320 Patients After Radical Prostatectomy

Dolejšová¹,

Kučera²,

Fuchsova³

et al. 2018

Technol Cancer Res Treat

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim:The purpose of this study was to investigate the Prostate Health Index as a marker for tumor aggressiveness in prostate biopsy and the optimization of indication for treatment options.Methods:Our cohort consisted of 320 patients indicated for radical prostatectomy with preoperative measurements of total prostate-specific antigen, free prostate-specific antigen, [-2]proPSA, calculated %freePSA, and Prostate Health Index. The Gleason score was determined during biopsy and after radical prostatectomy. Using the Gleason score, we divided the group of patients into the 2 subgroups: Gleason score ≤6 and Gleason score >6. This division was performed according to the biopsy Gleason score and according to the postoperative Gleason score. We compared total prostate-specific antigen, [-2]proPSA, %freePSA, and Prostate Health Index in the subgroups Gleason score ≤6 and Gleason score >6 after biopsy and the definitive score.Results:On evaluation of the subgroups created by Gleason score ≤6 and Gleason score >6, we observed agreement between biopsy Gleason score and definitive Gleason score in only 45.3% of cases. Of the calculated biopsy, Gleason score ≤6 and Gleason score >6 subgroups, [-2]proPSA, and Prostate Health Index (P = .0003 and P = .0005) were statistically significant. Of the definitive Gleason score ≤6 and Gleason score >6 subgroups, Prostate Health Index, [-2]proPSA, %freePSA, and PSA (P < .0001, P < .0001, P = .0003, and P = .0043) were statistically significant. The best area under the curve value (0.7496) was achieved by Prostate Health Index when the subgroups were established according to the postoperative Gleason score.Conclusion:Prostate Health Index is the best of the tested markers for the categorization of Gleason score 6 tumors and for facilitating the management of patients with prostate cancer. Prostate Health Index can be a helpful marker for indication of active surveillance or radical prostatectomy. Prostate health index can also simplify the decision of whether to perform nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy.

show abstract

External validation of a nomogram for identification of pathologically favorable disease in intermediate risk prostate cancer patients

Cited by 10 publications

References 21 publications

External evaluation of the Briganti nomogram to predict lymph node metastases in intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients

External evaluation of the Briganti nomogram to predict lymph node metastases in intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients

Recaída bioquímica en cáncer de próstata de bajo riesgo tratados con prostatectomía radical y linfadenectomía pélvica

The Ability of Prostate Health Index (PHI) to Predict Gleason Score in Patients With Prostate Cancer and Discriminate Patients Between Gleason Score 6 and Gleason Score Higher Than 6—A Study on 320 Patients After Radical Prostatectomy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About