A simple risk stratification model for prostate cancer using histopathologic findings of radical prostatectomy.

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2024-10-03 DOI:10.1093/ajcp/aqae049
Remi Semba, Katsunori Uchida, Yoshihumi Hirokawa, Taizo Shiraishi, Takehisa Onishi, Takeshi Sasaki, Takahiro Inoue, Masatoshi Watanabe, Hiroshi Miyamoto
{"title":"A simple risk stratification model for prostate cancer using histopathologic findings of radical prostatectomy.","authors":"Remi Semba, Katsunori Uchida, Yoshihumi Hirokawa, Taizo Shiraishi, Takehisa Onishi, Takeshi Sasaki, Takahiro Inoue, Masatoshi Watanabe, Hiroshi Miyamoto","doi":"10.1093/ajcp/aqae049","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To develop a simple postoperative risk stratification based on histopathologic findings from radical prostatectomy specimens.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study included 3 cohorts of patients with a preoperative diagnosis of clinically localized prostate cancer: 1 derivation cohort (n = 432) and 2 validation cohorts (n = 506 and n = 720). First, a postoperative risk stratification model was developed in the derivation cohort using the factors extraprostatic extension, surgical margin status, seminal vesicle invasion, and lymph node involvement. Each of the first 3 factors was assigned 0 or 1 point for negative or positive results, respectively, and the sum of the points, ranging from 0 to 3, was scored. pN1 was not scored but was analyzed separately. Validation cohorts were then used to evaluate the predictive accuracy of the model. Additionally, we compared the model with the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Because the log-rank test showed no statistically significant differences between scores 1 vs 2 or score 3 vs pN1 in the derivation cohort, the following 3-level risk stratification was created: low risk (score 0), intermediate risk (score 1-2), and high risk (score 3 or pN1). There were statistically significant differences in recurrence-free survival between any of 2 groups of 3-level risk stratification. This model similarly worked in both validation cohorts. The C indexes for the model were higher than those for the CAPRA score.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This simple postoperative risk stratification model, based on radical prostatectomy findings, has a prognostic impact that has been validated in a multicenter population.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/aqae049","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To develop a simple postoperative risk stratification based on histopathologic findings from radical prostatectomy specimens.

Methods: This study included 3 cohorts of patients with a preoperative diagnosis of clinically localized prostate cancer: 1 derivation cohort (n = 432) and 2 validation cohorts (n = 506 and n = 720). First, a postoperative risk stratification model was developed in the derivation cohort using the factors extraprostatic extension, surgical margin status, seminal vesicle invasion, and lymph node involvement. Each of the first 3 factors was assigned 0 or 1 point for negative or positive results, respectively, and the sum of the points, ranging from 0 to 3, was scored. pN1 was not scored but was analyzed separately. Validation cohorts were then used to evaluate the predictive accuracy of the model. Additionally, we compared the model with the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score.

Results: Because the log-rank test showed no statistically significant differences between scores 1 vs 2 or score 3 vs pN1 in the derivation cohort, the following 3-level risk stratification was created: low risk (score 0), intermediate risk (score 1-2), and high risk (score 3 or pN1). There were statistically significant differences in recurrence-free survival between any of 2 groups of 3-level risk stratification. This model similarly worked in both validation cohorts. The C indexes for the model were higher than those for the CAPRA score.

Conclusions: This simple postoperative risk stratification model, based on radical prostatectomy findings, has a prognostic impact that has been validated in a multicenter population.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
利用根治性前列腺切除术的组织病理学结果建立简单的前列腺癌风险分层模型。
目的根据根治性前列腺切除术标本的组织病理学结果制定简单的术后风险分层方法:本研究包括 3 组术前诊断为临床局部前列腺癌的患者:1 组衍生组(432 人)和 2 组验证组(506 人和 720 人)。首先,在衍生队列中使用前列腺体外扩展、手术边缘状态、精囊侵犯和淋巴结受累等因素建立了术后风险分层模型。前三个因素中的阴性或阳性结果分别得 0 分或 1 分,得分总和从 0 到 3 不等。然后使用验证队列来评估模型的预测准确性。此外,我们还将该模型与前列腺癌风险评估(CAPRA)评分进行了比较:由于对数秩检验显示衍生队列中 1 分与 2 分或 3 分与 pN1 之间的差异无统计学意义,因此我们创建了以下 3 级风险分层:低风险(0 分)、中度风险(1-2 分)和高风险(3 分或 pN1)。在 3 级风险分层的 2 组中,任何一组的无复发生存率都有显著的统计学差异。该模型在两个验证队列中同样有效。该模型的C指数高于CAPRA评分:结论:这一基于根治性前列腺切除术结果的简单术后风险分层模型对预后的影响已在多中心人群中得到验证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
期刊最新文献
A Systematic Review of Sleep Disturbance in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension. Advancing Patient Education in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: The Promise of Large Language Models. Anti-Myelin-Associated Glycoprotein Neuropathy: Recent Developments. Approach to Managing the Initial Presentation of Multiple Sclerosis: A Worldwide Practice Survey. Association Between LACE+ Index Risk Category and 90-Day Mortality After Stroke.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1