Partin Tables cannot accurately predict the pathological stage at radical prostatectomy.

PURPOSE The Partin Tables represent the most commonly used staging tool for radical prostatectomy (RP) candidates. The Partin Tables' predictions are used to guide the type (nerve preserving RP) and/or the extent (RP with wide resection) of RP. We examined the ability of the Partin Tables' predictions incorrectly assigning the stage at RP. METHODS The testing of the Partin Tables (external validation) was based on 3105 patients treated with RP at a single European institution. Standard validation metrics were used (area under the receiver operating characteristics curve, AUC) to test the three endpoints predicted by the Partin Tables, namely the presence of extracapsular extension (ECE), seminal vesicle invasion (SVI), and lymph node invasion (LNI). RESULTS Ideal predictions are denoted with 100% accuracy vs. 50% for entirely random predictions. For the 2001 version of the Tables the accuracy defined by the AUC was 79.7, 77.8, and 73.0 for ECE, SVI, and LNI, respectively. For the 2007 version of the Tables the corresponding accuracy estimates were 79.8, 80.5, and 76.2. The relationship between predicted probabilities and observed rates was poor. CONCLUSION The Partin Tables are meant to guide clinicians about the safety of nerve bundle preservation at RP, about the need for seminal vesicle resection or for lymphadenectomy. Therefore, the use of the Partin Tables predictions may significantly affect the type and/or the extent of RP. In their present format the Partin Tables are not accurate enough to influence the pre-operative decision making regarding the type or extent of RP.

[1]  C. Roehrborn,et al.  Differences in the rate of lymph node invasion in men with clinically localized prostate cancer might be related to the continent of origin , 2007, BJU international.

[2]  U. Capitanio,et al.  Clinicians are most familiar with nomograms and rate their clinical usefulness highest, look-up tables are second best. , 2008, European urology.

[3]  U. Capitanio,et al.  Impact of surgical volume on the rate of lymph node metastases in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy and extended pelvic lymph node dissection for clinically localized prostate cancer. , 2008, European urology.

[4]  C. Roehrborn,et al.  Significant upgrading affects a third of men diagnosed with prostate cancer: predictive nomogram and internal validation , 2006, BJU international.

[5]  Michael McCormack,et al.  Validation of 1997 Partin Tables' lymph node invasion predictions in men treated with radical prostatectomy in Montreal Quebec. , 2005, The Canadian journal of urology.

[6]  R. V. D. van den Bergh,et al.  Prospective validation of active surveillance in prostate cancer: the PRIAS study. , 2007, European urology.

[7]  Pierre I Karakiewicz,et al.  Initial biopsy outcome prediction--head-to-head comparison of a logistic regression-based nomogram versus artificial neural network. , 2007, European urology.

[8]  D. Chan,et al.  The use of prostate specific antigen, clinical stage and Gleason score to predict pathological stage in men with localized prostate cancer. , 1993, The Journal of urology.

[9]  M. Roobol,et al.  Active surveillance for prostate cancers detected in three subsequent rounds of a screening trial: characteristics, PSA doubling times, and outcome. , 2007, European urology.

[10]  Alan W Partin,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. , 2007, Urology.

[11]  A. Haese*,et al.  Critical assessment of tools to predict clinically insignificant prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy in contemporary men , 2008, Cancer.

[12]  M. Barchitta,et al.  Active surveillance of nosocomial infections in urologic patients. , 2007, European urology.

[13]  F. Montorsi,et al.  A nomogram for staging of exclusive nonobturator lymph node metastases in men with localized prostate cancer. , 2007, European urology.

[14]  Stefan Conrad,et al.  Prospective validation of an algorithm with systematic sextant biopsy to predict pelvic lymph node metastasis in patients with clinically localized prostatic carcinoma. , 2002, The Journal of urology.

[15]  James M Henning,et al.  How well does the Partin nomogram predict pathological stage after radical prostatectomy in a community based population? Results of the cancer of the prostate strategic urological research endeavor. , 2002, The Journal of urology.

[16]  F. Montorsi,et al.  Validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of lymph node invasion among patients undergoing radical prostatectomy and an extended pelvic lymphadenectomy. , 2006, European urology.

[17]  A. Haese*,et al.  Validation of a nomogram for prediction of side specific extracapsular extension at radical prostatectomy. , 2006, The Journal of urology.

[18]  U. Capitanio,et al.  Radical prostatectomy for incidental (stage T1a-T1b) prostate cancer: analysis of predictors for residual disease and biochemical recurrence. , 2008, European urology.

[19]  M. Kattan.  Re: 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. , 2007, European urology.

[20]  A. Shalhav,et al.  External validation of a nomogram for prediction of side-specific extracapsular extension at robotic radical prostatectomy. , 2007, Journal of endourology.

[21]  F. Montorsi,et al.  Development and split-sample validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of seminal vesicle invasion at radical prostatectomy. , 2007, European urology.

[22]  A W Partin,et al.  Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update. , 1997, JAMA.

[23]  Pierre I Karakiewicz,et al.  Comparison of accuracy between the Partin tables of 1997 and 2001 to predict final pathological stage in clinically localized prostate cancer. , 2004, The Journal of urology.

[24]  A. Haese*,et al.  Transition zone cancers undermine the predictive accuracy of Partin table stage predictions. , 2005, The Journal of urology.

[25]  K. Haustermans,et al.  A pretreatment table for the prediction of final histopathology after radical prostatectomy in clinical unilateral T3a prostate cancer. , 2007, European urology.

[26]  A W Partin,et al.  Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium. , 2002, Urology.

[27]  Michel Bolla,et al.  [EAU guidelines on prostate cancer]. , 2009, Actas urologicas espanolas.

[28]  Michael McCormack,et al.  Development and internal validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of prostate cancer Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology. , 2006, European urology.