Can partin tables be used in Turkish patients to predict prostate cancer?

Key Findings & Data:Methods: The clinical and pathological findings of 232 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy between 1992 and 2003 were as-sessed.

💡

Conclusion & Impact:This issue should be assessed in larger group of patients in our country.

🔬Design:Research Article

📍Scope:2003 Verileri

⚙️Variables:Nomogramlar · Prostatektomi · Prostat

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the predictive value of Partin tables for prostate cancer in circumstances of our country. Methods: The clinical and pathological findings of 232 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy between 1992 and 2003 were as-sessed. The pathological properties suggested by the Partin nomograms and the pathological findings in the prostatectomy specimens were compared and ROC (receiver operating characteristics) curve analyses were done. Results: The rate of organ confined disease was 64% in both our series and the Partin series. Our series displayed two major differences from the Partin series. First, clinical stage TIc rate was 30% in our study whereas it was 68% in the Partin series. And the second, in our study the rate of biopsy Gleason score 2-4 was 47% while it was 1% in the Partin series. To understand the predictive value of Partin nomogram, area under curves (AUCs)for organ confined disease; seminal vesicle involvement; and lymph no-de involvement were found as 0.701 (p< 0.001); 0.697 (p= 0.022); and 0.811 (p< 0.001), respectively. Conclusion: Although there are some differences in diagnosis and treatment modalities, our findings in this relatively small group of patients suggest that the Partin nomograms can also be used for the patients in Turkey. This issue should be assessed in larger group of patients in our country.

Özet

Amaç: Partin tablolarının prostat kanserini öngörmedeki değerini ülkemiz koşullarında incelemek. Yöntem: Kliniğimizde 1992 ile 2003 yılları arasında yapılan 232 radikal prostatektomi olgusunun klinik ve patolojik özellikleri değerlendirildi. Partin tablolarının öngördüğü ve radikal prostatektomi spesimeninde gözlenen patolojik özellikler karşılaştırıldı ve ROC (receiver operating characteristics) eğrileri analizi yapıldı. Bulgular: Organa sınırlı hastalık oranı hem buradaki seride hem de Partin serisinde %64 olarak saptandı. Bizim serimizin Partin serisinden iki önemli farkı vardı. Birincisi, klinik evre Tlc oranı bizim serimizde %30 iken Partin serisinde %68 idi. İkincisi biyopsi Gleason skoru 2-4 arasında olan grup Partin serisinde %1 iken, bi-zim serimizde %47 idi. Partin tablolarının serimizdeki hastaların patolojik özelliklerini öngörmede ne kadar başarılı olduğu-nu saptamak amacı ile çizilen ROC eğrilerinde eğri altındaki alan, organa sınırlı hastalık; seminal vezikül tutulumu; ve lenf nodu tutulumu için, sırasıyla, 0.701 (p< 0.001); 0.697 (p= 0.022); ve 0.811 (p< 0.001) olarak belirlendi. Sonuç: Tanı ve tedavi yöntemlerindeki farklılıklara rağmen ve hasta sayısı az olmakla birlikte Partin tablolarının Türkiye'deki hastalarda da kullanılabileceği anlaşılmaktadır. Ülkemiz için daha geniş hasta grupları ile yapılacak çalışmalara gereksinim vardır.

Keywords

Nomogramlar Prostatektomi Prostat Prostat neoplazmları Biyopsi Nomograms Prostatectomy Prostate Prostatic Neoplasms Biopsy

🔖

Cite This Article

ESKİÇORAPÇI, Y. S. Y., SOYLU, A., KARABULUT, E., ÖZDEN, E., ALPER, R., ÖZEN, H. (2003). Can partin tables be used in Turkish patients to predict prostate cancer?. Üroloji Bülteni, Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 4, 183–187. https://ajindex.com/articles/338879

References (13)

Epstein JI, Pizov G, Walsh PC. Correlation of pathologic findings with progression following radical retropubic prostatectomy. Cancer, 71: 3582,1993
Paulson DF. Impact of radical prostatectomy in the management of clinically localized disease. J Urol, 152:1826,1994
Graefen M, Noldus J, Pichlmeier U et al. Early prostate specific antigen relapse after radical retropubic prostatectomy: prediction on the basis of preoperative and postoperative tumor characteristics. Eur Urol, 36: 21,1999
Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Stapleton AM et al. A preoperative nomogram for disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst, 90: 766,1998
Bauer JJ, Connely RR, Seterhenn IA et al. Biostatistical modeling using traditional preoperative and pathological prognostic variables in the selection of men at high risk for disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol, 159:929, 1998
D'AmiCo AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB et al. Pretreatrnent nomogram for prostate specific anti¬gen recurrence after radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol, 17: 168,1999
Partin AW, Yoo J, Carter HB et al. The use of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage and Gleason sco¬re to predict pathological stage in men with locali¬zed prostate cancer. J Urol, 150:110,1993
Blute ML, Bergstrahl EJ, Partin AW et al. Validation of Partin tables for predicting pathological stage of clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol, 164:1591, 2000
Graefen M, Augustine H, Karakiewicz PI et al. 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 Urol, 43: 6, 2003
Partin AW, Mangold LA, Lamm PC et al. Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin tables) for the new millenium. Urology, 58:843,2001
Gleason DF: Histological Grading and Clinical Staging of Prostatic Carcinoma. Urologic Pathology: The prostate (Tannenbaum M, ed). Philadelphia, Lea and Febiger. 171-197,1977
Aslan G, Irer B, Celebi I et al. The comparison of Partin tables with pathologic examination of radical prostatectomy specimens for localized prostate cancer. J Urol, 169: 298, 2003
Akbal C, Ekici S, Özden E et al. 247 Radikal prostatektomi, zamanla neler değişti? Türk Üroloji Dergisi, 17. Ulusal Üroloji Kongresi Özel Sayısı: 144, 2002.