The accuracy of pathological data for the prediction of insignificant prostate cancer
Carregando...
Citações na Scopus
3
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2012
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
BRAZILIAN SOC UROL
Autores
Citação
INTERNATIONAL BRAZ J UROL, v.38, n.6, p.760-768, 2012
Resumo
Introduction: The widespread screening programs prompted a decrease in prostate cancer stage at diagnosis, and active surveillance is an option for patients who may harbor clinically insignificant prostate cancer (IPC). Pathologists include the possibility of an IPC in their reports based on the Gleason score and tumor volume. This study determined the accuracy of pathological data in the identification of IPC in radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens. Materials and Methods: Of 592 radical prostatectomy specimens examined in our laboratory from 2001 to 2010, 20 patients harbored IPC and exhibited biopsy findings suggestive of IPC. These biopsy features served as the criteria to define patients with potentially insignificant tumor in this population. The results of the prostate biopsies and surgical specimens of the 592 patients were compared. Results: The twenty patients who had IPC in both biopsy and RP were considered real positive cases. All patients were divided into groups based on their diagnoses following RP: true positives (n = 20), false positives (n = 149), true negatives (n = 421), false negatives (n = 2). The accuracy of the pathological data alone for the prediction of IPC was 91.4%, the sensitivity was 91% and the specificity was 74%. Conclusion: The identification of IPC using pathological data exclusively is accurate, and pathologists should suggest this in their reports to aid surgeons, urologists and radiotherapists to decide the best treatment for their patients.
Palavras-chave
Prostate cancer, Prostate, Gleason score, Diagnosis
Referências
- Allan RW, 2003, J UROLOGY, V170, P370, DOI 10.1097/01.ju.0000074747.72993.cb
- Bastian PJ, 2004, CANCER, V101, P2001, DOI 10.1002/cncr.20586
- Bastian PJ, 2009, EUR UROL, V55, P1321, DOI 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.02.028
- Boccon-Gibod LM, 2005, EUR UROL, V48, P895, DOI 10.1016/j.eururo.2005.04.033
- Bott SRJ, 2002, BJU INT, V89, P886, DOI 10.1046/j.1464-410X.2002.02796.x
- Bruce RG, 1996, UROLOGY, V48, P75
- Chun FKH, 2007, EUR J CANCER, V43, P536, DOI 10.1016/j.ejca.2006.10.018
- Chun FKH, 2006, BJU INT, V98, P329, DOI 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06262.x
- Chun FKH, 2008, CANCER-AM CANCER SOC, V113, P701, DOI [10.1002/cncr.23610, 10.1002/cncr,23610]
- CUPP MR, 1995, J UROLOGY, V153, P1543, DOI 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)67458-5
- Duffield AS, 2009, J UROLOGY, V182, P2274, DOI 10.1016/j.juro.2009.07.024
- Epstein JI, 2005, AM J SURG PATHOL, V29, P1228, DOI 10.1097/01.pas.0000173646.99337.b1
- EPSTEIN JI, 1994, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V271, P368, DOI 10.1001/jama.271.5.368
- HUMPHREY PA, 1990, HUM PATHOL, V21, P799, DOI 10.1016/0046-8177(90)90048-A
- Jeldres C, 2008, EUR UROL, V54, P1306, DOI 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.11.057
- Kattan MW, 2003, J UROLOGY, V170, P1792, DOI 10.1097/01.ju.0000091806.70171.41
- Leite KRM, 2009, INT J RADIAT ONCOL, V73, P353, DOI 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.04.039
- Miyake H, 2007, UROLOGY, V69, P738, DOI 10.1016/j.urology.2007.01.018
- Nakanishi H, 2007, CANCER, V110, P2441, DOI 10.1002/cncr.23055
- Samaratunga H, 2007, UROLOGY, V70, P299, DOI 10.1016/j.urology.2007.03.068
- Stamey TA, 1999, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V281, P1395, DOI 10.1001/jama.281.15.1395
- Takashima R, 2002, UROLOGY, V59, P692, DOI 10.1016/S0090-4295(02)01525-X