4.6 Article

Validation of the Contemporary Epstein Criteria for Insignificant Prostate Cancer in European Men

期刊

EUROPEAN UROLOGY
卷 54, 期 6, 页码 1306-1313

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.11.057

关键词

Epstein criteria; Insignificant prostate cancer; Prediction

资金

  1. University of Montreal Health Center Urology Associates
  2. Fonds de la Recherche en Sante du Quebec
  3. University of Montreal Department of Surgery
  4. University of Montreal Health Center (CHUM) Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: The Epstein criteria represent the most widely used scheme for prediction of clinically insignificant prostate cancer (PCa). However, they were never validated in European men. We assessed the rate of unfavorable prostate cancer (Gleason 7-10 or non-organ-confined disease) in a cohort of 366 men who fulfilled the Epstein clinically insignificant PCa criteria. Methods: Between 1996 and 2006, 2580 men underwent radical prostatectomy at a single academic European institution. Of those, 366 fulfilled the contemporary Epstein clinically insignificant PCa criteria. Analyses targeted the rate of pathologically unfavorable prostate cancer, defined as either Gleason sum 7-10 or non-organ-confined disease, or a combination of these characteristics in patients with clinically insignificant PCa. Results: Gleason 7-10 prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy was found in 88 patients (24%) with clinically insignificant PCa. In addition, 30 (34.1%) of the 88 patients harboured non-organ-confined disease. Consequently, the contemporary Epstein criteria for clinically insignificant PCa were inaccurate in 24% of patients. Conclusions: The Epstein clinical insignificant PCa criteria may underestimate the true nature of prostate cancer in as many as 24% of European patients. Therefore, caution is advised when treatment decisions are based solely on these criteria. (C) 2007 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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