Urology and Nephrology Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences
  • Register
  • Login

Urology Journal

  • Home
  • Instant Online
    • Instant 2023
    • Instant 2022
    • Instant 2021
    • Instant 2020
  • Current
  • Archives
  • Announcements
  • Submissions
  • Author Guidelines
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • Privacy Statement
    • Contact
Advanced Search
  1. Home
  2. Archives
  3. Vol. 15 No. 6 (2018): November-December2018
  4. ORIGINAL PAPER(UROLOGICAL ONCOLOGY)

ISSN: 1735-1308

November-December2018
Vol. 15 No. 6 (2018)

Does the New Proposal for Prostate Cancer Grading Correlate With CAPRA Score?

  • Levent Isikay
  • Senol Tonyali
  • Gulden Aydog

Urology Journal, Vol. 15 No. 6 (2018), , Page 355-358
https://doi.org/10.22037/uj.v0i0.4607 Published 17 November 2018

  • View Article
  • Download
  • Cite
  • References
  • Statastics
  • Share

Abstract

Purpose: To determine if there is a correlation between the newly proposed Gleason grading system by the International Society of Urological Pathology and the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score.
Material and Methods: The records of all patients that underwent radical prostatectomy at our hospital between 2007 and 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. The study parameters included patient demographics, the percentage of pre-operative prostate biopsies positive for PCa, biopsy Gleason Score (GS), and pre- and post-operative PSA values.
Result: The study included 146 patients with complete medical records and follow-up data. Mean age of the patients
was 66.6 ± 6.08 years. According to the newly proposed Gleason grading system, 97 (66.4%) patients were grade 1, 20 (13.7%) were grade 2, 8 (5.5%) were grade 3, 11 (7.5%) were grade 4, and 10 (6.8%) were grade 5. The distribution of CAPRA scores was as follows: 1: n = 43 (29.5%); 2: n = 53 (36.3%); 3: n = 22 (15.1%); 4: n = 14 (9.6%); 5: n = 8 (5.5%); 6: n = 4 (2.7%); 7: n = 1 (0.7%); 8: n = 1 (0.7%). Correlation analysis showed that the
CAPRA score was significantly correlated with GS based on the newly proposed Gleason grading system (Correlation
Coefficient=0.361, P < 0.001).
Conclusion: As a strong correlation was noted between these 2 independent grading systems, we think clinicians that seek to predict the prognosis in PCa patients should take into consideration both the newly proposed ISUP grading system and the CAPRA score.
  • PDF

How to Cite

Isikay, L., Tonyali, S., & Aydog, G. (2018). Does the New Proposal for Prostate Cancer Grading Correlate With CAPRA Score?. Urology Journal, 15(6), 355-358. https://doi.org/10.22037/uj.v0i0.4607
  • ACM
  • ACS
  • APA
  • ABNT
  • Chicago
  • Harvard
  • IEEE
  • MLA
  • Turabian
  • Vancouver
  • Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
  • BibTeX

References

REFERENCES

Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. Eur Urol. 2014;65(1):124-37.

Johnson ME, Zaorsky NG, Martin JM, et al. Patient reported outcomes among treatment modalities for prostate cancer. Can J Urol. 2016;23(6):8535-45.

Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, et al. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40(2):244-52.

Khochikar M. Newly Proposed Prognostic Grade Group System for Prostate Cancer: Genesis, Utility and its Implications in Clinical Practice. Curr Urol Rep. 2016;17(11):80.

Knuchel R. Gleason Score 6 - Prostate Cancer or Benign Variant? Oncol Res Treat. 2015;38(12):629-32.

Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Stapleton AM, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT. A preoperative nomogram for disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90(10):766-71.

D'Amico AV, Moul J, Carroll PR, Sun L, Lubeck D, Chen MH. Cancer-specific mortality after surgery or radiation for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer managed during the prostate-specific antigen era. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(11):2163-72.

Cooperberg MR, Hilton JF, Carroll PR. The CAPRA-S score: A straightforward tool for improved prediction of outcomes after radical prostatectomy. Cancer. 2011;117(22):5039-46.

Prostate Cancer Risk Assessment and the UCSF-CAPRA Score [Available from: https://urology.ucsf.edu/research/cancer/prostate-cancer-risk-assessment-and-the-ucsf-capra-score.

Cooperberg MR. Implications of the new AUA guidelines on prostate cancer detection in the U.S. Curr Urol Rep. 2014;15(7):420.

Cooperberg MR. Prostate cancer risk assessment: choosing the sharpest tool in the shed. Cancer. 2008;113(11):3062-6.

Gleason DF. Histologic grading of prostate cancer: a perspective. Hum Pathol. 1992;23(3):273-9.

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(11):969-74.

Cooperberg MR, Pasta DJ, Elkin EP, et al. The University of California, San Francisco Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score: a straightforward and reliable preoperative predictor of disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2005;173(6):1938-42.

Cooperberg MR, Vickers AJ, Broering JM, Carroll PR. Comparative risk-adjusted mortality outcomes after primary surgery, radiotherapy, or androgen-deprivation therapy for localized prostate cancer. Cancer. 2010;116(22):5226-34.

Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Carroll PR. Risk assessment for prostate cancer metastasis and mortality at the time of diagnosis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(12):878-87.

May M, Knoll N, Siegsmund M, et al. Validity of the CAPRA score to predict biochemical recurrence-free survival after radical prostatectomy. Results from a european multicenter survey of 1,296 patients. J Urol. 2007;178(5):1957-62; discussion 62.

Cooperberg MR, Freedland SJ, Pasta DJ, et al. Multiinstitutional validation of the UCSF cancer of the prostate risk assessment for prediction of recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Cancer. 2006;107(10):2384-91.

  • Abstract Viewed: 709 times
  • PDF Downloaded: 177 times

Download Statastics

  • Linkedin
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Google Plus
  • Telegram

In case of persistent problems in registration, primary uploading of a submission or uploading of a revision, please send us the submission files on the journal email at:

urologyjournal@sbmu.ac.ir

and please attach the screenshot of the error or problem you encountered in uploading.

 

Make a Submission

          Journal Research in Urology

Information
  • For Readers
  • For Authors
Keywords
  • Home
  • Archives
  • Submissions
  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Team
  • Contact
The template of this website is designed by Sinaweb