• Please log in or register to access this feature.

Urological Oncology

You have free access to this content

An updated prostate cancer staging nomogram (Partin tables) based on cases from 2006 to 2011

  1. John B. Eifler*,
  2. Zhaoyang Feng,
  3. Brian M. Lin,
  4. Michael T. Partin,
  5. Elizabeth B. Humphreys,
  6. Misop Han,
  7. Jonathan I. Epstein,
  8. Patrick C. Walsh,
  9. Bruce J. Trock,
  10. Alan W. Partin

Article first published online: 26 JUL 2012

DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11324.x

Issue

BJU International

BJU International

Volume 111, Issue 1, pages 22–29, January 2013

Additional Information

How to Cite

Eifler, J. B., Feng, Z., Lin, B. M., Partin, M. T., Humphreys, E. B., Han, M., Epstein, J. I., Walsh, P. C., Trock, B. J. and Partin, A. W. (2013), An updated prostate cancer staging nomogram (Partin tables) based on cases from 2006 to 2011. BJU International, 111: 22–29. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11324.x

Author Information

  1. James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and the Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA

* Correspondence: John B. Eifler, James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins Hospital, 600 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA.
e-mail: jeifler1@jhmi.edu

Publication History

  1. Issue published online: 20 DEC 2012
  2. Article first published online: 26 JUL 2012
Corrected by:

Corrigendum: Corrigendum

Vol. 111, Issue 3, 524, Article first published online: 27 FEB 2013

SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

ARTICLE TOOLS

View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (184K)

References

  • 1
    Partin AW, Yoo J, Carter HB et al. The use of prostate specific antigen, clinical stage and Gleason score to predict pathological stage in men with localized prostate cancer. J Urol 1993; 150: 110–114
  • 2
    Partin AW, Kattan MW, Subong EN et al. Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update. JAMA 1997; 277: 1445–1451
  • 3
    Partin AW, Mangold LA, Lamm DM, Walsh PC, Epstein JI, Pearson JD. Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium. Urology 2001; 58: 843–848
  • 4
    Makarov DV, Trock BJ, Humphreys EB et al. Updated nomogram to predict pathologic stage of prostate cancer given prostate-specific antigen level, clinical stage, and biopsy Gleason score (Partin tables) based on cases from 2000 to 2005. Urology 2007; 69: 1095–1101
  • 5
    Yu JB, Makarov DV, Sharma R, Peschel RE, Partin AW, Gross CP. Validation of the partin nomogram for prostate cancer in a national sample. J Urol 2010; 183: 105–111
  • 6
    Blute ML, Bergstralh EJ, Partin AW et al. Validation of Partin tables for predicting pathological stage of clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2000; 164: 1591–1595
  • 7
    Karakiewicz PI, Lattouf JB, Perrotte P et al. Validation of 1997 Partin Tables' lymph node invasion predictions in men treated with radical prostatectomy in Montreal Quebec. Can J Urol 2005; 12: 2588–2592
  • 8
    Eskicorapci SY, Karabulut E, Turkeri L et al. Validation of 2001 Partin tables in Turkey: a multicenter study. Eur Urol 2005; 47: 185–189
  • 9
    Huang Y, Isharwal S, Haese A et al. Prediction of patient-specific risk and percentile cohort risk of pathological stage outcome using continuous prostate-specific antigen measurement, clinical stage and biopsy Gleason score. BJU Int 2011; 107: 1562–1569
    Direct Link:
  • 10
    Augustin H, Isbarn H, Auprich M et al. Head to head comparison of three generations of Partin tables to predict final pathological stage in clinically localised prostate cancer. Eur J Cancer 2010; 46: 2235–2241
  • 11
    Fanning DM, Fan Y, Fitzpatrick JM, Watson RW. External validation of the 2007 and 2001 Partin tables in Irish prostate cancer patients. Urol Int 2010; 84: 174–179
  • 12
    Naito S, Kuroiwa K, Kinukawa N et al. Validation of Partin tables and development of a preoperative nomogram for Japanese patients with clinically localized prostate cancer using 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology consensus on Gleason grading: data from the Clinicopathological Research Group for Localized Prostate Cancer. J Urol 2008; 180: 904–909; discussion 9–10
  • 13
    Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E. Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin 2010; 60: 277–300
    Direct Link:
  • 14
    Shao YH, Demissie K, Shih W et al. Contemporary risk profile of prostate cancer in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009; 101: 1280–1283
  • 15
    Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Kantoff PW, Carroll PR. Contemporary trends in low risk prostate cancer: risk assessment and treatment. J Urol 2007; 178: S14–19
  • 16
    Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC, Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL. The 2005 international society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005; 29: 1228–1242
  • 17
    Lotan TL, Epstein JI. Clinical implications of changing definitions within the Gleason grading system. Nat Rev Urol 2010 7: 136–142
  • 18
    Epstein JI. An update of the Gleason grading system. J Urol 2010; 183: 433–440
  • 19
    Harrell FE, Jr, Lee KL, Mark DB. Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med 1996; 15: 361–387
    Direct Link:
  • 20
    Chuang AY, Nielsen ME, Hernandez DJ, Walsh PC, Epstein JI. The significance of positive surgical margin in areas of capsular incision in otherwise organ confined disease at radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2007; 178: 1306–1310
  • 21
    Guillonneau B. Ceteris paribus and nomograms in medicine. Eur Urol 2007; 52: 1287–1289
  • 22
    Han M, Partin AW, Piantadosi S, Epstein JI, Walsh PC. Era specific biochemical recurrence-free survival following radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2001; 166: 416–419
  • 23
    Epstein JI, Pizov G, Walsh PC. Correlation of pathologic findings with progression after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Cancer 1993; 71: 3582–3593
    Direct Link:
  • 24
    Silberstein JL, Vickers AJ, Power NE et al. Reverse stage shift at a tertiary care center: escalating risk in men undergoing radical prostatectomy. Cancer 2011; 117: 4855–4860
    Direct Link:
  • 25
    Ganz PA, Barry JM, Burke W et al. National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference: role of active surveillance in the management of men with localized prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med 2012; 156: 591–595
  • 26
    Zelefsky MJ, Eastham JA, Cronin AM et al. Metastasis after radical prostatectomy or external beam radiotherapy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer: a comparison of clinical cohorts adjusted for case mix. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 1508–1513
  • 27
    Pierorazio PM, Ross AE, Han M et al. Evolution of the clinical presentation of men undergoing radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int 2012; 109: 988–993
    Direct Link:
  • 28
    Pierorazio PM, Ross AE, Schaeffer EM et al. A contemporary analysis of outcomes of adenocarcinoma of the prostate with seminal vesicle invasion (pT3b) after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2011; 185: 1691–1697
  • 29
    Loeb S, Schaeffer EM, Trock BJ, Epstein JI, Humphreys EB, Walsh PC. What are the outcomes of radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer? Urology 2010; 76: 710–714
  • 30
    Budaus L, Spethmann J, Isbarn H et al. Inverse stage migration in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: results of 8916 European patients treated within the last decade. BJU Int 2011; 108: 1256–1261
    Direct Link:
  • 31
    Billis A, Guimaraes MS, Freitas LL, Meirelles L, Magna LA, Ferreira U. The impact of the 2005 international society of urological pathology consensus conference on standard Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in needle biopsies. J Urol 2008; 180: 548–552; discussion 52–3
  • 32
    Helpap B, Egevad L. The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Virchows Arch 2006; 449: 622–627
  • 33
    Cagiannos I, Karakiewicz P, Eastham JA et al. A preoperative nomogram identifying decreased risk of positive pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer. J Urol 2003; 170: 1798–1803
  • 34
    D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998; 280: 969–974
  • 35
    Abdollah F, Schmitges J, Sun M et al. Head-to-head comparison of three commonly used preoperative tools for prediction of lymph node invasion at radical prostatectomy. Urology 2011; 78: 1363–1367
  • 36
    Vickers AJ. Editorial comment. Urology 2011; 78: 1368
  • 37
    Orvieto MA, Coelho RF, Chauhan S, Palmer KJ, Rocco B, Patel VR. Incidence of lymphoceles after robot-assisted pelvic lymph node dissection. BJU Int 2011; 108: 1185–1190
    Direct Link:
  • 38
    Eifler JB, Levinson AW, Hyndman ME, Trock BJ, Pavlovich CP. Pelvic lymph node dissection is associated with symptomatic venous thromboembolism risk during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2011; 185: 1661– 1665
  • 39
    Musch M, Klevecka V, Roggenbuck U, Kroepfl D. Complications of pelvic lymphadenectomy in 1,380 patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy between 1993 and 2006. J Urol 2008; 179: 923–928; discussion 8–9
  • 40
    Briganti A, Blute ML, Eastham JH et al. Pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2009; 55: 1251–1265
  • 41
    Stone NN, Stock RG, Unger P. Laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer: comparison of the extended and modified techniques. J Urol 1997; 158: 1891–1894
  • 42
    Herrell SD, Trachtenberg J, Theodorescu D. Staging pelvic lymphadenectomy for localized carcinoma of the prostate: a comparison of 3 surgical techniques. J Urol 1997; 157: 1337–1339
  • 43
    Mohler JL. The 2010 NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology on prostate cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2010; 8: 145
  • 44
    Silberstein JL, Vickers AJ, Power NE et al. Pelvic lymph node dissection for patients with elevated risk of lymph node invasion during radical prostatectomy: comparison of open, laparoscopic and robot-assisted procedures. J Endourol 2011; 26: 748–753
  • 45
    Lin K, Croswell JM, Koenig H, Lam C, Maltz A. Prostate-Specific Antigen-Based Screening for Prostate Cancer: An Evidence Update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); October Update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, 2011
View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (184K)