A Modified Partın Table to Better Predict Extracapsular Extensıon in Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer
Vol. 18 No. 01 (2021),
17 March 2021
Purpose: Prediction of extracapsular extension (ECE) before radical prostatectomy in clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa) is very important for clinical practice. ECE affects our decision on treatment strategy. The aim of this study is to identify the predictors of ECE, determine cut-off values, and compare them with the accuracy of Partin Table parameters to improve tumor staging in clinical practice.
Materials and Methods: 374 patients with clinically localized PCa who underwent open radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) were included in this study. Gleason Score (GS), age, digital rectal examination (DRE), prostate specific antigen (PSA), prostate specific antigen density (PSAD), free PSA, Free/Total PSA, prostate volume (PV), number of cores involved, tumor length, and tumor percentage in maximum involved core in biopsy were investigated.
Results: PSAD, tumor percentage, and tumor length are predictive factors of ECE. The cut-off values of PSA,
PSAD, maximum tumor length, and maximum tumor percentages in predicting ECE are: > 8.90 ng/mL, > 0.26
ng/mL2, >5mm, and >50%, respectively. The cut-off values for Partin extraprostatic extension (EPE) and organ
confined (OC) disease are >29% and ≤ 64%, respectively.
Conclusion: Partin tables could better predict extracapsular extension in clinically localized PCa if they include
PSAD, tumor percentage, and tumor length. The cut-off values of these predictive factors can be beneficial in
treatment strategies and in the decisions of lymphadenectomy and nerve-sparing surgery at radical prostatectomy.
- PSAD, PSA, Extracapsular Extention, Radical Prostatectomy, Partin Table, Localized Prostate Cancer
How to Cite
2) Hull GW,Rabbani F, Abbas F,Wheeler TM, Kattan MW,Scardino PT,Cancer control with radical prostatectomy alone in 1.000 consecutive patients. J.Urol 2002;167:528-534.
3) Conford P.Bellmunt J, Bolla M et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 2: treatment of relapsing, metastatic and castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2016:71:630-42.
4) Cooperberg M.Pasta DJ.Elkin EP. et al. The University of California-San Francisco Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment Score: a straight forward and reliable preoperative predictor of disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J.Urol 2005:173:1938-42.
5) Fahmy O, Khairul-Asri MG. Hadi S. Gakis G. Stenzl A. The role of radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy in treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis Urol.Int 2017:99:249-56.
6) Partin AW,YooJ,Carter HB,Pearson JD,Chan DW,Epstein Jl,Walsh P.C. The use of prostate spesific antigen, clinical stage and Gleason score to predict pathological stage in men with localized prostate cancer. J.Urol.1993:150:110-114.
7) Partin AW, Kattan MW, Subong EN, Walsh PC, Wajno KJ, Oesterling JE, Scardino PT, Pearson J.D, Combination of prostate spesific antigen, clinical stage and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update. JAMA 1997;277:1445-1451.
8) Brasetti,A; Lombardo,R;Emiliozzi,P;Cardi,A;Antonio,I;Aldo,S;Tommaso,R;Alberto,P. Prostate Spesific Antigen Density is a Good Predictor of upstaging and upgrading. According to the new Grading System: The Keys We Are Seeking May Be Already In Our Pocket. Urology 2018,111,129-135.
9) Imnadze, M; Sjoberg,D.D; Vickers, A.J. Adverse Pathologic Features at Radical Prostatectomy; Effect of Preoperative Risk on Oncologic Outcomes. Eur-Urol.2016,69,143-148.
10) Jeldres,C; Suardi, N.;Walz,J;Hutterer,G.C;Ahyai,S;Lattouf,J.B.;Haese,A;Graefen,M.; Erbersdobler,A.;Heinzer,H: et al. Validation of the Contemporary Epstein Criteria for Insignificant prostate Cancer in European Men. Eur-Urol.2008-54,1306-1313.
11) Beauval,J.B.; Ploussard,G.;Soulie,M,;Pfister,C.;Van Agt,S.;Vincendeau,S,;Larue,S.;Rigaud,J.; Gaschignard,N.;Roupret,M.;et al. Pathologic Findings in Radical Prostatectomy Specimens From Patients Eligible For Active Surveillance With Highly Selective Criteria: A multicenter Study.Urology 2012,80,656-660.
12) Epstein,J.J.;Feng.Z.;Track,B.J.;Pierorazio,P.M. Upgrading and Downgrading of Prostate Cancer From Biopsy to Radical Prostatectomy: Incıdence and Predictive Factors Using The Modified Gleason Grading System and Factoring In Tertiary Grades. Eur-Urol.2012,61,1019-1024.
13) Ravery,V.,Sehmid,H.P.Toublane,M et al; Is the percentage of cancer in biopsy cores predictive of extracapsular disease in T1-T2 prostate carcinoma. Cancer ,78:1079-1996.
14) Cheng,L,Darsan,M.F.Bergstrahl,E.J et al. Correlation of margin status and extraprostatic extension with progression of prostate carcinoma. Cancer,86:1775,1999.
15) Obek,C.Sadek,S.,Lai,S., et al: Positive surgical margins with radical retropubic prostatectomy: anatomic site-spesific pathologic analysis and impact on prognosis. Urology, 54:682,1999.
16) Sfoungaristos S,Perimenis P. Clinical and pathological parameters predicting extracapsular disease in patients undergoing a radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Prague Med Rep.2012;113;5-15.
17) Rashid Sayyid,N.Perlis,A.Ahmad,Andrew Ewans,A.Toi,M.Harrigan,A.Finelli,A.Zlotta,G.Kulkarni, R.Hamilton,C.Morash,N.Fleshner. Development and external validation of a biopsy-derived nomogram to predict risk of ipsilateral extraprostatic extension. BJU Int 2017;120:76-82.
18) Thiago N.Valette,Alberto A.Antunes,Katia Moreira Leite,Miguel Srougi. Probability of extraprostatic disease according to the percentage of positive biopsy cores in clinically localized prostate cancer.
19) X.Gao;N.Mohideen,:R.C.Flanigan,;W.B.Waters.;Eva.M.Wojcık,:C.R.Leman. The extent of biopsy involvement as an independent predictor of extraprostatic extension and surgical margin status in low risk prostate cancer. Implıcations for treatment selection. The Journal of Urology.Vol 164,1982-1986,December 2000.
20) Akio Horiguchi;J.Nakashima;Y.Horiguchi;K.Nakawa;M.Oya:T.Ohigashi,K.Marumo;M.Murai. Prediction of Extraprostatic Cancer by Prostate Spesific Antigen Density, Endorectal MRI and Biopsy Gleason Score in Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer. The Prostate 56:23-29 (2003).
21) Philip J.,Dutta Roy S.,Ballal M.,Foster C.S,.Jaule P. Is a digital rectal exemination necessary in the diagnosis and clinical staging of early prostate cancer. BJU Int 2005;95;969-971.
22) Davis R.Salmasi A,Koprowski C,Kim S,Kuron YS. Faiena I, et al. Accuracy of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imacing for Extracapsular Extension of Prostate Cancer in Community Practice. Clin Genitourin Cancer.2016;14(6):e617-22.
23) de Rooij M. Hamoen EHJ,Vitjes JA,Barentsz.JO.Rovers,M.M. Accuracy of Magnetic Resonance Imaging for local staging of Prostate Cancer. A Diagnostic Meta-analysis Eur-Urol.2016;70(2): 233-45.
24) Bernard H.E.Jansen.; J.A. Nieuwenhuijzen,; Daniele E.Oprea-Lager,;M,J.Yska,;A.P.Lont,;R.J.A. van Moorselaar,;A.N,Vis. Adding multiparametric MRI to the MSKCC and Partin Nomograms for primary prostate cancer: Improving local tumor staging? Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations 000 (2018) 1-6.
25) Rajon.T.Gupta,;A.F,Brown,;R.K.Silverman,;K.J.Tay,;J.F.Madden,;D.J.George,;T.J.Polascik. Can Radiologic Staging With Multiparametric MRI Enhance the Accuracy of the Partin Tables in Predicting Organ-Confired Prostate Cancer? Genitourinary Imaging.AJR:207,July 2016.
- Abstract Viewed: 0 times
- 6477-pdf Downloaded: 0 times