Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • Something wrong with this record ?

Contemporary seminal vesicle invasion rates in NCCN high-risk prostate cancer patients

RS. Flammia, B. Hoeh, G. Sorce, F. Chierigo, L. Hohenhorst, Z. Tian, JA. Goyal, C. Leonardo, A. Briganti, M. Graefen, C. Terrone, F. Saad, SF. Shariat, F. Montorsi, FKH. Chun, M. Gallucci, PI. Karakiewicz

. 2022 ; 82 (10) : 1051-1059. [pub] 20220411

Language English Country United States

Document type Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Persistent link   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc22018261

BACKGROUND: Contemporary seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) rates in National Cancer Comprehensive Network (NCCN) high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients are not well known but essential for treatment planning. We examined SVI rates according to individual patient characteristics for purpose of treatment planning. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Within Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (2010-2015), 4975 NCCN high-risk patients were identified. In the development cohort (SEER geographic region of residence: South, North-East, Mid-West, n = 2456), we fitted a multivariable logistic regression model predicting SVI. Its accuracy, calibration, and decision curve analyses (DCAs) were then tested versus previous models within the external validation cohort (SEER geographic region of residence: West, n = 2519). RESULTS: Out of 4975 patients, 28% had SVI. SVI rate ranged from 8% to 89% according to clinical T stage, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), biopsy Gleason Grade Group and percentage of positive biopsy cores. In the development cohort, these variables were independent predictors of SVI. In the external validation cohort, the current model achieved 77.6% accuracy vs 73.7% for Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre (MSKCC) vs 68.6% for Gallina et al. Calibration was better than for the two alternatives: departures from ideal predictions were 6.0% for the current model vs 9.8% for MSKCC vs 38.5% for Gallina et al. In DCAs, the current model outperformed both alternatives. Finally, different nomogram cutoffs allowed to discriminate between low versus high SVI risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: More than a quarter of NCCN high-risk PCa patients harbored SVI. Since SVI positivity rate varies from 8% to 89%, the currently developed model offers a valuable approach to distinguish between low and high SVI risk patients.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc22018261
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20220804134647.0
007      
ta
008      
220720s2022 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1002/pros.24350 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)35403734
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Flammia, Rocco S $u Department of Maternal-Child and Urological Sciences, Sapienza University Rome, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Rome, Italy $u Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
245    10
$a Contemporary seminal vesicle invasion rates in NCCN high-risk prostate cancer patients / $c RS. Flammia, B. Hoeh, G. Sorce, F. Chierigo, L. Hohenhorst, Z. Tian, JA. Goyal, C. Leonardo, A. Briganti, M. Graefen, C. Terrone, F. Saad, SF. Shariat, F. Montorsi, FKH. Chun, M. Gallucci, PI. Karakiewicz
520    9_
$a BACKGROUND: Contemporary seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) rates in National Cancer Comprehensive Network (NCCN) high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients are not well known but essential for treatment planning. We examined SVI rates according to individual patient characteristics for purpose of treatment planning. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Within Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (2010-2015), 4975 NCCN high-risk patients were identified. In the development cohort (SEER geographic region of residence: South, North-East, Mid-West, n = 2456), we fitted a multivariable logistic regression model predicting SVI. Its accuracy, calibration, and decision curve analyses (DCAs) were then tested versus previous models within the external validation cohort (SEER geographic region of residence: West, n = 2519). RESULTS: Out of 4975 patients, 28% had SVI. SVI rate ranged from 8% to 89% according to clinical T stage, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), biopsy Gleason Grade Group and percentage of positive biopsy cores. In the development cohort, these variables were independent predictors of SVI. In the external validation cohort, the current model achieved 77.6% accuracy vs 73.7% for Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre (MSKCC) vs 68.6% for Gallina et al. Calibration was better than for the two alternatives: departures from ideal predictions were 6.0% for the current model vs 9.8% for MSKCC vs 38.5% for Gallina et al. In DCAs, the current model outperformed both alternatives. Finally, different nomogram cutoffs allowed to discriminate between low versus high SVI risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: More than a quarter of NCCN high-risk PCa patients harbored SVI. Since SVI positivity rate varies from 8% to 89%, the currently developed model offers a valuable approach to distinguish between low and high SVI risk patients.
650    _2
$a biopsie $7 D001706
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    _2
$a invazivní růst nádoru $x patologie $7 D009361
650    _2
$a staging nádorů $7 D009367
650    _2
$a nomogramy $7 D049451
650    _2
$a prostatický specifický antigen $7 D017430
650    12
$a prostatektomie $x metody $7 D011468
650    12
$a nádory prostaty $x patologie $7 D011471
650    _2
$a semenné váčky $x patologie $7 D012669
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
700    1_
$a Hoeh, Benedikt $u Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada $u Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany $1 https://orcid.org/0000000242386584
700    1_
$a Sorce, Gabriele $u Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada $u Division of Experimental Oncology, Department of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
700    1_
$a Chierigo, Francesco $u Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada $u Department of Surgical and Diagnostic Integrated Sciences, University of Genova, Genova, Italy $1 https://orcid.org/0000000173570758
700    1_
$a Hohenhorst, Lukas $u Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada $u Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
700    1_
$a Tian, Zhen $u Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
700    1_
$a Goyal, Jordan A $u Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
700    1_
$a Leonardo, Costantino $u Department of Maternal-Child and Urological Sciences, Sapienza University Rome, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Rome, Italy
700    1_
$a Briganti, Alberto $u Division of Experimental Oncology, Department of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
700    1_
$a Graefen, Markus $u Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany $u Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
700    1_
$a Terrone, Carlo $u Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
700    1_
$a Saad, Fred $u Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
700    1_
$a Shariat, Shahrokh F $u Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA $u Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas, USA $u Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic $u Department of Urology, Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia $u Department of Urology, Hourani Center for Applied Scientific Research, Al-Ahliyya Amman University, Amman, Jordan $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
700    1_
$a Montorsi, Francesco $u Division of Experimental Oncology, Department of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
700    1_
$a Chun, Felix K H $u Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
700    1_
$a Gallucci, Michele $u Department of Maternal-Child and Urological Sciences, Sapienza University Rome, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Rome, Italy
700    1_
$a Karakiewicz, Pierre I $u Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
773    0_
$w MED00010484 $t The Prostate $x 1097-0045 $g Roč. 82, č. 10 (2022), s. 1051-1059
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35403734 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20220720 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20220804134641 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1822046 $s 1169504
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2022 $b 82 $c 10 $d 1051-1059 $e 20220411 $i 1097-0045 $m The Prostate $n Prostate $x MED00010484
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20220720

Find record

Citation metrics

Archiving options