Counseling men with prostate cancer: a nomogram for predicting the presence of small, moderately differentiated, confined tumors.

PURPOSE Men diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer have a number of treatment options available, including watchful waiting, radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy. With the widespread use of serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing, prostate cancers are being diagnosed earlier in their natural history, with many tumors being small and of little health risk to the patient, at least in the short term. To better counsel men diagnosed with prostate cancer, we developed a statistical model that accurately predicts the presence of small moderately differentiated, confined cancer based on clinical variables (serum PSA, clinical stage, prostate biopsy Gleason grade and ultrasound volume) and variables derived from the analysis of systematic biopsies. MATERIALS AND METHODS The analysis included 409 patients diagnosed by systematic needle biopsy with clinical stages T1c or T2a N0 or NX and M0 or MX prostate cancer who were treated solely with radical prostatectomy at 1 of 2 institutions. Additional biopsy features included number and percentage of biopsy cores involved with cancer and high grade cancer, in addition to total length of biopsy cores involved. Indolent cancer was defined as pathologically organ confined cancer 0.5 cc or less in volume and without poorly differentiated elements. Logistic regression was used to construct several prediction models and the resulting nomograms. RESULTS Overall 80 (20%) of the patients had indolent cancer. The nomogram predicted the presence of an indolent cancer with discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristics curves) for various models ranging from 0.64 to 0.79. Calibration of the models appeared good. CONCLUSIONS Nomograms incorporating pretreatment variables (clinical stage, Gleason grade, PSA and the amount of cancer in a systematic biopsy specimen) can predict the probability that a man with prostate cancer has an indolent tumor. These nomograms have good discriminatory ability and calibration, and may benefit the patient and clinician when the various treatment options for prostate cancer are being considered.

[1]  P. Walsh,et al.  Expectant management of nonpalpable prostate cancer with curative intent: preliminary results. , 2002, The Journal of urology.

[2]  T. Wheeler,et al.  Heterogeneity of prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens. , 1994, Urology.

[3]  Ahmedin Jemal,et al.  Cancer Statistics, 2002 , 2002, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[4]  J. Hanley,et al.  Competing Risk Analysis of Men Aged 55 to 74 Years at Diagnosis Managed Conservatively for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer , 1998 .

[5]  Neil Fleshner,et al.  Feasibility study: watchful waiting for localized low to intermediate grade prostate carcinoma with selective delayed intervention based on prostate specific antigen, histological and/or clinical progression. , 2002, The Journal of urology.

[6]  P. Walsh,et al.  The significance of prior benign needle biopsies in men subsequently diagnosed with prostate cancer. , 1999, The Journal of urology.

[7]  R. Kronmal Spurious Correlation and the Fallacy of the Ratio Standard Revisited , 1993 .

[8]  D. Chan,et al.  Nonpalpable stage T1c prostate cancer: prediction of insignificant disease using free/total prostate specific antigen levels and needle biopsy findings. , 1998, The Journal of urology.

[9]  J. Cerhan,et al.  Prostate Cancer Trends 1973-1995, SEER Program National Cancer Institute. , 1999 .

[10]  Frank E. Harrell,et al.  Regression Modeling Strategies: With Applications to Linear Models, Logistic Regression, and Survival Analysis , 2001 .

[11]  M W Kattan,et al.  Distinguishing clinically important from unimportant prostate cancers before treatment: value of systematic biopsies. , 1996, The Journal of urology.

[12]  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.

[13]  P. Walsh,et al.  Prospective evaluation of men with stage T1C adenocarcinoma of the prostate. , 1997, Journal of Urology.

[14]  P. Schellhammer,et al.  Conservative management of prostate cancer in the prostate specific antigen era: the incidence and time course of subsequent therapy. , 2001, The Journal of urology.

[15]  Peter H Gann,et al.  Overdiagnosis due to prostate-specific antigen screening: lessons from U.S. prostate cancer incidence trends. , 2002, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[16]  T. Stamey,et al.  The pathological features and prognosis of prostate cancer detectable with current diagnostic tests. , 1994, The Journal of urology.

[17]  P. Walsh,et al.  Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. , 1994, JAMA.

[18]  J. Epstein,et al.  Increasing incidence of minimal residual cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens. , 1997, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[19]  T. Stamey,et al.  Relationship between systematic biopsies and histological features of 222 radical prostatectomy specimens: lack of prediction of tumor significance for men with nonpalpable prostate cancer. , 2001, The Journal of urology.

[20]  P. Scardino,et al.  Early detection of prostate cancer. , 1989, The Urologic clinics of North America.

[21]  Michael W Kattan,et al.  Cancer control with radical prostatectomy alone in 1,000 consecutive patients. , 2002, The Journal of urology.