Purpose: To compare Partin tables (PTs) 1997, 2001, and 2007 for their clinical applicability in a Chinese cohort based upon a decision curve analysis (DCA). Methods: Clinical and pathologic data of 264 consecutive Chinese patients with clinically localized prostate cancer were used. These patients underwent open radical prostatectomy between 2005 and 2011. DCA quantified the net benefit of different PT versions relating to specific threshold probabilities of established capsular penetration (ECP), seminal vesicle involvement (SVI), and lymph node involvement (LNI). Results: Overall, ECP, SVI, and LNI were recorded in 23.1, 10.2, and 6.1%, respectively. When the threshold probability was below the prevalence for LNI and ECP predictions, the DCA favored the 2007 version versus the 1997 version for SVI. Conclusions: DCA indicates that for low threshold probability, decision models are useful to discriminate the performance differences of three PT versions, although net benefit differences were not apparent. For high threshold probability, there may not be an important benefit from the use of PTs and the current analysis cannot translate into meaningful net gains differences.

Keywords:
Decision curve analysis, Partin tables, Prostate cancer, Radical prostatectomy, Net benefit
1.
Partin AW, Yoo J, Carter HB, Pearson JD, Chan DW, Epstein JI, Walsh PC: 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, Walsh PC, Wojno KJ, Oesterling JE, Scardino PT, Pearson JD: 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, Mangold LA, Walsh PC, Epstein JI, Partin AW: 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.
Graefen M, Augustin H, Karakiewicz PI, Hammerer PG, Haese A, Palisaar J, Blonski J, Fernandez S, Erbersdobler A, Huland H: Can predictive models for prostate cancer patients derived in the United States of America be utilized in European patients? A validation study of the Partin tables. Eur Urol 2003;43:6-10.
7.
Naito S, Kuroiwa K, Kinukawa N, Goto K, Koga H, Ogawa O, Murai M, Shiraishi T: 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.
8.
Gao X, Ren S, Lu X, Xu C, Sun Y: The newer the better? Comparison of the 1997 and 2001 Partin tables for pathologic stage prediction of prostate cancer in China. Urology 2008;72:1096-1101.
9.
Vickers AJ, Elkin EB: Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med Decis Making 2006;26: 565-574.
10.
Augustin H, Sun M, Isbarn H, Pummer K, Karakiewicz P: Decision curve analysis to compare three versions of Partin tables to predict final pathologic stage. Urol Oncol 2012;30:396-401.
11.
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: DCA - Decision Curve Analysis. New York 2009. Available at: http://www.mskcc.org/mskcc/shared/graphics/epidemiology/Vickers/Decision_Curve_Analysis/Tutorial_R/v2_Worked_example_of_decisioncurve_analysis_using_R.pdf (accessed October 2009).
12.
Albers P, Schafers S, Lohmer H, de Geeter P: Seminal vesicle-sparing perineal radical prostatectomy improves early functional results in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int 2007;100:1050-1054.
13.
Sokoloff MH, Brendler CB: Indications and contraindications for nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. Urol Clin North Am 2001;28: 535-543.
14.
Chun FK, Graefen M, Zacharias M, Haese A, Steuber T, Schlomm T, Walz J, Karakiewicz PI, Huland H: Anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy-long-term recurrence-free survival rates for localized prostate cancer. World J Urol 2006;24: 273-280.
15.
Jacob R, Hanlon AL, Horwitz EM, Movsas B, Uzzo RG, Pollack A: Role of prostate dose escalation in patients with greater than 15% risk of pelvic lymph node involvement. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005;61:695-701.
16.
Shariat SF, Karakiewicz PI, Roehrborn CG, Kattan MW: An updated catalog of prostate cancer predictive tools. Cancer 2008;113:3075-3099.
17.
Ross PL, Gerigk C, Gonen M, Yossepowitch O, Cagiannos I, Sogani PC, Scardino PT, Kattan MW: Comparisons of nomograms and urologists' predictions in prostate cancer. Semin Urol Oncol 2002;20:82-88.
18.
Xiao WJ, Yao XD, Zhang SL, Dai B, Wang CF, Wang J, Zhang HL, Shen YJ, Zhu Y, Zhu YP, Shi GH, Ma CG, Qin XJ, Lin GW: Comparison of accuracy among three generations of Partin tables in a Chinese cohort. Can J Urol 2011;18:5619-5624.
19.
Steyerberg EW, Vickers AJ: Decision curve analysis: a discussion: Med Decis Making 2008;28:146-149.
© 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel
2013
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.