medigraphic.com
Organo Oficial de la Sociedad Mexicana de Urología

2022, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Urol 2022; 82 (3)

Performance evaluation of the Partin Table (2007), in a current ecuadorian sample

Martínez-Calderón MN, Oviedo-Rivera GB, del Cisne Serrano-Olmedo S, Beltrán-Sánchez MJ, González-Córdova MP

Language: Spanish
References: 21
Page:
PDF size: 268.85 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Background: Partin tables made from a 2007 cohort in a North American population are regularly used to predict the extent of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. There is no study that evaluated this table in the Ecuadorian population.
Objective: To determine the usefulness in the prediction made by Partin tables in Ecuadorian patients with prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy.
Materials and methods:A descriptive, cross-sectional, quantitative and retrospective study was designed, the latter being its limitation. The records of 119 patients with prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy during the period from 2010 to 2020 were reviewed. The area under the curve (AUC) was calculated using the ROC curve, and the result for extraprostatic extension (EEP) was compared. , infiltration of seminal vesicles (IVS) and lymph nodes (INL) with the Partin 2007 cohort.
Results: The ROC curve for EEP showed an AUC 0.54 (0.43-0.65), for ISV 0.60 (0.44-0-76) with low sensitivity and specificity, while for INL an AUC of 0.73 (0.59-0.86) with acceptable sensitivity but low specificity.
Conclusions: Partin Tables did not predict pathological stages for EPP and ISV; however, for INL it can be used with caution.


REFERENCES

  1. GLOBOCAN. Global cancer statistics 2018.Cancer today. 2018. [accessed 6 Jun 2022]Available from: http://gco.iarc.fr/today/home

  2. Nyirády P. [Surgical treatment of prostatecancer]. Magy Onkol. 2019 Mar 19;63(1):26–31.

  3. Preisser F, van den Bergh RCN, GandagliaG, Ost P, Surcel CI, Sooriakumaran P, etal. Effect of Extended Pelvic Lymph NodeDissection on Oncologic Outcomes inPatients with D’Amico Intermediate and HighRisk Prostate Cancer Treated with RadicalProstatectomy: A Multi-Institutional Study. JUrol. 2020 Feb;203(2):338–43. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/ju.0000000000000504

  4. Ventimiglia E, Briganti A, Montorsi F. Lymphnode dissection during radical prostatectomy forprostate cancer: extending the template in theright patients without increasing complications.BJU Int. 2018 May;121(5):677–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14169

  5. García-Perdomo HA, Correa-OchoaJJ, Contreras-García R, DaneshmandS. Effectiveness of extended pelviclymphadenectomy in the survival of prostatecancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Cent European J Urol. 2018;71(3):262–9. doi:https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2018.1703

  6. Makarov DV, Trock BJ, Humphreys EB,Mangold LA, Walsh PC, Epstein JI, et al.Updated nomogram to predict pathologicstage of prostate cancer given prostate-specificantigen level, clinical stage, and biopsy Gleasonscore (Partin tables) based on cases from 2000to 2005. Urology. 2007 Jun;69(6):1095–101. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2007.03.042

  7. Partin AW, Carter HB. The use of prostatespecificantigen and free/total prostatespecificantigen in the diagnosis of localizedprostate cancer. Urol Clin North Am.1996 Nov;23(4):531–40. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0094-0143(05)70333-5

  8. Partin AW, Yoo J, Carter HB, Pearson JD, ChanDW, Epstein JI, et al. The use of prostate specificantigen, clinical stage and Gleason score topredict pathological stage in men with localizedprostate cancer. J Urol. 1993 Jul;150(1):110–4. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)35410-1

  9. Partin AW, Kattan MW, Subong EN, Walsh PC,Wojno KJ, Oesterling JE, et al. Combinationof prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, andGleason score to predict pathological stage oflocalized prostate cancer. A multi-institutionalupdate. JAMA. 1997 May 14;277(18):1445–51. doi: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1997.03540420041027

  10. Partin AW, Mangold LA, Lamm DM, Walsh PC,Epstein JI, Pearson JD. Contemporary updateof prostate cancer staging nomograms (PartinTables) for the new millennium. Urology. 2001Dec;58(6):843–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-4295(01)01441-8

  11. Bhojani N, Ahyai S, Graefen M, CapitanioU, Suardi N, Shariat SF, et al. Partin Tablescannot accurately predict the pathologicalstage at radical prostatectomy. EuropeanJournal of Surgical Oncology (EJSO). 2009 Feb1;35(2):123–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2008.07.013

  12. Bhojani N, Salomon L, Capitanio U, Suardi N,Shariat SF, Jeldres C, et al. External validationof the updated partin tables in a cohort ofFrench and Italian men. Int J Radiat Oncol BiolPhys. 2009 Feb 1;73(2):347–52. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.04.082

  13. Fanning DM, Fan Y, Fitzpatrick JM, WatsonRWG. External validation of the 2007 and 2001Partin tables in Irish prostate cancer patients.Urol Int. 2010;84(2):174–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1159/000277594

  14. Augustin H, Auprich M, Mannweiler S,Pachernegg O, Al-Ali BM, Pummer K.Prostate cancers detected by saturation repeatbiopsy impairs the Partin tables’ accuracyto predict final pathological stage. BJU Int.2012 Aug;110(3):363–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410x.2011.10765.x

  15. Regnier-Coudert O, McCall J, Lothian R, LamT, McClinton S, N’Dow J. Machine learningfor improved pathological staging of prostatecancer: A performance comparison on a rangeof classifiers. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine.2012 May 1;55(1):25–35. doi: 10.1016/j.artmed.2011.11.003

  16. Shen X-C, Qiu Y-Q, Zheng Y-C, Zhang S-Z.Are Partin tables suitable for Chinese patientswith prostate cancer? Chin Med J (Engl).2012 Nov;125(21):3795–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0366-6999.2012.21.009

  17. Jeong CW, Jeong SJ, Hong SK, Lee SB, KuJH, Byun S-S, et al. Nomograms to predict thepathological stage of clinically localized prostatecancer in Korean men: comparison with westernpredictive tools using decision curve analysis.Int J Urol. 2012 Sep;19(9):846–52. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2042.2012.03040.x

  18. Turo R, Forster JA, West RM, Prescott S, PaulAB, Cross WR. Do prostate cancer nomogramsgive accurate information when appliedto European patients? Scand J Urol. 2015Feb;49(1):16–24. doi: https://doi.org/10.3109/21681805.2014.920415

  19. Yadav R, Arora S, Sachdeva M, Gupta NP.Assessment of the performance of Partin’snomogram (2007) in contemporary Indiancohort. Indian J Urol. 2016 Sep;32(3):199–

  20. doi: https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-1591.18509620. Yu JB, Makarov DV, Sharma R, Peschel RE,Partin AW, Gross CP. Validation of the partinnomogram for prostate cancer in a nationalsample. J Urol. 2010 Jan;183(1):105–11. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.08.143

  21. Briganti A, Larcher A, Abdollah F, Capitanio U,Gallina A, Suardi N, et al. Updated nomogrampredicting lymph node invasion in patientswith prostate cancer undergoing extendedpelvic lymph node dissection: the essentialimportance of percentage of positive cores. EurUrol. 2012 Mar;61(3):480–7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.10.044




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com