4.6 Review

The Will Rogers phenomenon in urological oncology

期刊

JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 179, 期 1, 页码 28-33

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.08.125

关键词

neoplasm staging; prognosis; classification

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Improvement in the prognosis of patient groups due to stage or grade reclassification is called the Will Rogers phenomenon. We determined the significance of the Will Rogers phenomenon in urological oncology. Materials and Methods: Studies referring to the Will Rogers phenomenon in urological oncology were identified through a MEDLINE (R) search. Samples of articles not referring to the phenomenon directly but likely to be biased by it, such as articles comparing contemporary data to historical controls, were also reviewed. Results: In prostate cancer the Will Rogers phenomenon is the result of the late 1990s acceptance that Gleason scores 2 to 4 should not be assigned on prostate biopsy. Consequently grade inflation occurred and current readings are almost 1 Gleason grade higher compared to past readings of the same biopsy. The result is an illusion of improvement in grade adjusted prognosis. In bladder cancer the Will Rogers phenomenon arises from improvement in histopathological processing of cystectomy specimens enabling the identification of microscopic perivesical fat infiltration and lymph node metastases not recognized in the past. Up staging from pT2 to pT3 and NO to N+ may partly explain the improved stage adjusted survival after radical cystectomy observed in contemporary series. The Will Rogers phenomenon may also explain the correlation between the total number of lymph nodes removed at radical cystectomy and survival. As more lymph nodes are removed the probability of identifying metastases and up staging to N+ increases. Conclusions: Comparison of contemporary results to historical controls may be biased by the Will Rogers phenomenon. Ignoring the possibility of stage or grade reclassification may lead to erroneous conclusions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据