European Journal of Surgical Oncology
Volume 35, Issue 2 , Pages 123-128 , February 2009

Partin Tables cannot accurately predict the pathological stage at radical prostatectomy

  • N. Bhojani

      Affiliations

    • Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Center (CHUM), Montréal, Québec, Canada
    • Department of Urology, University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada
    • Equal contribution.
    • ,
  • S. Ahyai

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
    • Equal contribution.
    • ,
  • M. Graefen

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
    • ,
  • U. Capitanio

      Affiliations

    • Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Center (CHUM), Montréal, Québec, Canada
    • Department of Urology, Vita-Salute University San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
    • ,
  • N. Suardi

      Affiliations

    • Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Center (CHUM), Montréal, Québec, Canada
    • Department of Urology, Vita-Salute University San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
    • ,
  • S.F. Shariat

      Affiliations

    • Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Center (CHUM), Montréal, Québec, Canada
    • ,
  • C. Jeldres

      Affiliations

    • Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Center (CHUM), Montréal, Québec, Canada
    • Department of Urology, University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada
    • ,
  • A. Erbersdobler

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
    • ,
  • T. Schlomm

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
    • ,
  • A. Haese

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
    • ,
  • T. Steuber

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
    • ,
  • H. Heinzer

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
    • ,
  • F. Montorsi

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Vita-Salute University San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
    • ,
  • H. Huland

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
    • ,
  • P.I. Karakiewicz

      Affiliations

    • Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Center (CHUM), Montréal, Québec, Canada
    • Department of Urology, University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Center (CHUM), 1058, Rue St-Denis, Montréal, Québec H2X 3J4, Canada. Tel.: +1 514 890 8000 35336; fax: +1 514 412 7363.

,Accepted 23 July 2008.

References 

  1. Chun FK, Briganti A, Shariat SF, et al. Significant upgrading affects a third of men diagnosed with prostate cancer: predictive nomogram and internal validation. BJU Int. 2006;98:329–334
  2. Steuber T, Graefen M, Haese A, et al. Validation of a nomogram for prediction of side specific extracapsular extension at radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2006;175:939–944[discussion 944]
  3. Zorn KC, Gallina A, Hutterer GC, et al. External validation of a nomogram for prediction of side-specific extracapsular extension at robotic radical prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2007;21:1345–1352
  4. Gallina A, Chun FK, Briganti A, et al. Development and split-sample validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of seminal vesicle invasion at radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2007;52:98–105
  5. Capitanio U, Jeldres C, Shariat SF, Karakiewicz P. Clinicians are most familiar with nomograms and rate their clinical usefulness highest, look-up tables are second best. Eur Urol. 2008;
  6. Chun FK, Steuber T, Erbersdobler A, et al. Development and internal validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of prostate cancer Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology. Eur Urol. 2006;49:820–826
  7. Briganti A, Chun FK, Salonia A, et al. Validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of lymph node invasion among patients undergoing radical prostatectomy and an extended pelvic lymphadenectomy. Eur Urol. 2006;49:1019–1026[discussion 1026–1017]
  8. Briganti A, Chun FK, Salonia A, et al. A nomogram for staging of exclusive nonobturator lymph node metastases in men with localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2007;51:112–119[discussion 119–20]
  9. Capitanio U, Scattoni V, Freschi M, et al. Radical prostatectomy for incidental (stage t1a–t1b) prostate cancer: analysis of predictors for residual disease and biochemical recurrence. Eur Urol. 2008;54:118–125
  10. Chun FK, Haese A, Ahyai SA, et al. Critical assessment of tools to predict clinically insignificant prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy in contemporary men. Cancer. 2008;
  11. Partin AW, Yoo J, Carter HB, et al. The use of prostate specific antigen, clinical stage and Gleason score to predict pathological stage in men with localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 1993;150:110–114
  12. Partin AW, Kattan MW, Subong EN, et al. Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update. JAMA. 1997;277:1445–1451
  13. Partin AW, Mangold LA, Lamm DM, Walsh PC, Epstein JI, Pearson JP. Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium. Urology. 2001;58:843–848
  14. Makarov DV, Trock BJ, Humphreys EB, et al. Updated nomogram to predict pathologic stage of prostate cancer given prostate-specific antigen level, clinical stage, and biopsy Gleason score (Partin tables) based on cases from 2000 to 2005. Urology. 2007;69:1095–1101
  15. Capitanio U, Karakiewicz PI, Jeldres C, et al. Suspected clinical T3 prostate cancer is associated with a high rate of negative extended biopsies: clinical implications. Eur Urol. 2008;
  16. Kattan MW. Re: Updated nomogram to predict pathologic stage of prostate cancer given prostate-specific antigen level, clinical stage, and biopsy Gleason score (Partin Tables) based on cases from 2000 to 2005. Eur Urol. 2007;52:1528
  17. Briganti A, Capitanio U, Chun FK, et al. Impact of Surgical volume on the rate of lymph node metastases in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy and extended pelvic lymph node dissection for clinically localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2008;
  18. Joniau S, Hsu CY, Lerut E, et al. A pretreatment table for the prediction of final histopathology after radical prostatectomy in clinical unilateral T3a prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2007;51:388–394[discussion 395–386]
  19. Penson DF, Grossfeld GD, Li YP, Henning JM, Lubeck DP, Carroll PR. How well does the Partin nomogram predict pathological stage after radical prostatectomy in a community based population? Results of the cancer of the prostate strategic urological research endeavor. J Urol. 2002;167:1653–1657[discussion 1657–8]
  20. Karakiewicz PI, Lattouf JB, Perrotte P, et al. Validation of 1997 Partin Tables' lymph node invasion predictions in men treated with radical prostatectomy in Montreal Quebec. Can J Urol. 2005;12:2588–2592
  21. Steuber T, Karakiewicz PI, Augustin H, et al. Transition zone cancers undermine the predictive accuracy of Partin table stage predictions. J Urol. 2005;173:737–741
  22. Augustin H, Eggert T, Wenske S, et al. Comparison of accuracy between the Partin tables of 1997 and 2001 to predict final pathological stage in clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2004;171:177–181
  23. Briganti A, Shariat SF, Chun FK, et al. Differences in the rate of lymph node invasion in men with clinically localized prostate cancer might be related to the continent of origin. BJU Int. 2007;100:528–532
  24. Conrad S, Graefen M, Pichlmeier U, et al. Prospective validation of an algorithm with systematic sextant biopsy to predict pelvic lymph node metastasis in patients with clinically localized prostatic carcinoma. J Urol. 2002;167:521–525
  25. Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, de Vries SH, et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancers detected in three subsequent rounds of a screening trial: characteristics, PSA doubling times, and outcome. Eur Urol. 2007;51:1244–1250[discussion 1251]
  26. Heidenreich A, Aus G, Bolla M, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2008;53:68–80
  27. van den Bergh RC, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, Roobol W, Schroder FH, Bangma CH. Prospective validation of active surveillance in prostate cancer: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol. 2007;52:1560–1563
  28. Agodi A, Barchitta M, Anzaldi A, Marchese F, Bonaccorsi A, Motta M. Active surveillance of nosocomial infections in urologic patients. Eur Urol. 2007;51:247–253[discussion 253–244]
  29. Chun FK, Graefen M, Briganti A, et al. Initial biopsy outcome prediction-head-to-head comparison of a logistic regression-based nomogram versus artificial neural network. Eur Urol. 2007;51:1236–1243

PII: S0748-7983(08)01728-9

doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2008.07.013

European Journal of Surgical Oncology
Volume 35, Issue 2 , Pages 123-128 , February 2009

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution