An updated prostate cancer staging nomogram (Partin tables) based on cases from 2006 to 2011
- PMID: 22834909
- PMCID: PMC3876476
- DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11324.x
An updated prostate cancer staging nomogram (Partin tables) based on cases from 2006 to 2011
Erratum in
- BJU Int. 2013 Mar;111(3):524
Abstract
Objective: To update the 2007 Partin tables in a contemporary patient population.
Patients and methods: The study population consisted of 5,629 consecutive men who underwent RP and staging lymphadenectomy at the Johns Hopkins Hospital between January 1, 2006 and July 30, 2011 and met inclusion criteria. Polychotomous logistic regression analysis was used to predict the probability of each pathologic stage category: organ-confined disease (OC), extraprostatic extension (EPE), seminal vesicle involvement (SV+), or lymph node involvement (LN+) based on preoperative criteria. Preoperative variables included biopsy Gleason score (6, 3+4, 4+3, 8, and 9-10), serum PSA (0-2.5, 2.6-4.0, 4.1-6.0, 6.1-10.0, greater than 10.0 ng/mL), and clinical stage (T1c, T2c, and T2b/T2c). Bootstrap re-sampling with 1000 replications was performed to estimate 95% confidence intervals for predicted probabilities of each pathologic state.
Results: The median PSA was 4.9 ng/mL, 63% had Gleason 6 disease, and 78% of men had T1c disease. 73% of patients had OC disease, 23% had EPE, 3% had SV+ but not LN+, and 1% had LN+ disease. Compared to the previous Partin nomogram, there was no change in the distribution of pathologic state. The risk of LN+ disease was significantly higher for tumours with biopsy Gleason 9-10 than Gleason 8 (O.R. 3.2, 95% CI 1.3-7.6). The c-indexes for EPE vs. OC, SV+ vs. OC, and LN+ vs. OC were 0.702, 0.853, and 0.917, respectively. Men with biopsy Gleason 4+3 and Gleason 8 had similar predicted probabilities for all pathologic stages. Most men presenting with Gleason 6 disease or Gleason 3+4 disease have <2% risk of harboring LN+ disease and may have lymphadenectomy omitted at RP.
Conclusions: The distribution of pathologic stages did not change at our institution between 2000-2005 and 2006-2011. The updated Partin nomogram takes into account the updated Gleason scoring system and may be more accurate for contemporary patients diagnosed with prostate cancer.
© 2012 BJU International.
Figures
Comment in
-
What have we learned from the Partin table update?BJU Int. 2013 Jan;111(1):5. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2013.11708.x. BJU Int. 2013. PMID: 23323697 No abstract available.
-
Re: an updated prostate cancer staging nomogram (partin tables) based on cases from 2006 to 2011.J Urol. 2013 Apr;189(4):1320. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.12.069. Epub 2012 Dec 28. J Urol. 2013. PMID: 23561342 No abstract available.
References
-
- 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;150:110–14. - PubMed
-
- 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;277:1445–51. - PubMed
-
- Partin AW, Mangold LA, Lamm DM, Walsh PC, Epstein JI, Pearson JD. Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium. Urology. 2001;58:843–8. - PubMed
-
- Yu JB, Makarov DV, Sharma R, Peschel RE, Partin AW, Gross CP. Validation of the partin nomogram for prostate cancer in a national sample. J Urol. 2010;183:105–11. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Research Materials
Miscellaneous
