4.4 Article

Prostate-specific Antigen Density Is a Good Predictor of Upstaging and Upgrading, According to the New Grading System: The Keys We Are Seeking May Be Already in Our Pocket

期刊

UROLOGY
卷 111, 期 -, 页码 129-134

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2017.07.071

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE To analyze the performance of prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) as a predictor of upstaging and prognostic grade group (PGG) upgrading. MATERIALS AND METHODS We retrospectively evaluated data on men with prostate cancer (PCa) treated with robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) at our center in 2014-2015. Preoperative PSAD was calculated. Bioptic and pathologic PGGs were also considered in the analysis. We defined upgrading as any increase in PGG after RALP; upstaging was the pathologic diagnosis of a clinically unsuspected stage >= 3a PCa. RESULTS Data on 379 patients were analyzed. Upgrading was found in 41.4% of the patients; 29% of the patients were upstaged. On multivariable analysis, core involvement and PSAD were found to be predictors of upgrading (odds ratio [OR] 1.017, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.001-1.034, P =.039; and OR 3.638, 95% CI 1.084-12.207, P =.001, respectively). Furthermore, core involvement and PSAD were predictors of upstaging (OR 1.020, 95% CI 1.020-1.034, P =.003; and OR 5.656, 95% CI 1.285-24.894, P =.022, respectively). PSAD showed areas under the curve of 0.712 (95% CI 0.645-0.780, P =.000) and 0.628 (95% CI 0.566-0.689, P =.000) for the prediction of upgrading and upstaging, respectively. In a subpopulation of 90 patients theoretically eligible for active surveillance, 14% were found upstaged and 17% were upgraded. PSAD showed areas under the curve of 0.894 (95% CI 0.808-0.97, P =.000) and 0.689 (95% CI 0.539-0.840, P =.021) for the prediction of upgrading and upstaging, respectively. CONCLUSION PSAD is a valuable predictor of upgrading and upstaging in men with PCa who were candidates for surgery and is accurate in selecting patients for AS. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc.

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

4.4
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