The 2012 Briganti nomogram predicts disease progression after surgery in high-risk prostate cancer patients

References

• EAU Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Edn. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Milan 2023. Arnhem, The Netherland: EAU Guidelines Office; n.d. ISBN 978-94-92671-19-6.
   Google Scholar
• NCCN. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology, prostate cancer, version 4. 2023 [cited 2023 Nov 4th]. n.d. Available from: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Wallis CJD, Zhao Z, Huang L-C, et al. Association of treatment modality, functional outcomes, and baseline characteristics with treatment-related regret among men with localized prostate cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2022;8(1):50–59. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.5160
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, et al. Fifteen-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2023;388(17):1547–1558. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2214122
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooperberg MR, Cowan J, Broering JM, et al. High-risk prostate cancer in the United States, 1990–2007. World J Urol. 2008;26(3):211–218. doi: 10.1007/s00345-008-0250-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chierigo F, Flammia RS, Sorce G, et al. Racial/Ethnic disparities in the distribution and effect of type and number of high-risk criteria on mortality in prostate cancer patients treated with radiotherapy. Arab J Urol. 2023;21(3):135–141. doi: 10.1080/2090598X.2022.2148867
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moris L, Cumberbatch MG, Van den Broeck T, et al. Benefits and risks of primary treatments for high-risk localized and locally advanced prostate cancer: an international multidisciplinary systematic review. Eur Urol. 2020;77:614–627. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.01.033
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gongora M, Stranne J, Johansson E, et al. Characteristics of patients in SPCG-15-A randomized trial comparing radical prostatectomy with primary radiotherapy plus androgen deprivation therapy in men with locally advanced prostate cancer. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2022;41:63–73. doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2022.04.013
   Google Scholar
• Briganti A, Larcher A, Abdollah F, et al. Updated nomogram predicting lymph node invasion in patients with prostate cancer undergoing extended pelvic lymph node dissection: the essential importance of percentage of positive cores. Eur Urol. 2012;61:480–487. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.10.044
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gandaglia G, Fossati N, Zaffuto E, et al. Development and internal validation of a novel model to identify the candidates for extended pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2017;72:632–640. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.03.049
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gandaglia G, Ploussard G, Valerio M, et al. A novel nomogram to identify candidates for extended pelvic lymph node dissection among patients with clinically localized prostate cancer diagnosed with magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic biopsies. Eur Urol. 2019;75(3):506–514. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.10.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tosoian JJ, Chappidi M, Feng Z, et al. Prediction of pathological stage based on clinical stage, serum prostate-specific antigen, and biopsy Gleason score: partin tables in the contemporary era. BJU Int. 2017;119(5):676–683. doi: 10.1111/bju.13573
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Pre-radical prostatectomy tool to predict probability of lymph node involvement in prostate cancer patients. n.d. Available from: https://www.mskcc.org/nomograms/prostate/pre_op
   Google Scholar
• Yu JB, Makarov DV, Gross C. A new formula for prostate cancer lymph node risk. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;80:69–75. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.01.068
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porcaro AB, Rizzetto R, Amigoni N, et al. American Society of Anesthesiologists’ (ASA) physical status system and risk of major clavien-dindo complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy at hospital discharge: analysis of 1143 consecutive prostate cancer patients. Indian J Surg Oncol. 2022;13(4):848–857. doi: 10.1007/s13193-022-01577-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, et al. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40(2):244–252. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000530
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paner GP, Stadler WM, Hansel DE, et al. Updates in the eighth edition of the tumor-node-metastasis staging classification for urologic cancers. Eur Urol. 2018;73(4):560–569. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.12.018
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tafuri A, Sebben M, Pirozzi M, et al. Predictive factors of the risk of long-term hospital readmission after primary prostate surgery at a single tertiary referral center: preliminary report. Urol Int. 2020;104(5–6):465–475. doi: 10.1159/000505409
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porcaro AB, Tafuri A, Panunzio A, et al. Endogenous testosterone density is an independent predictor of pelvic lymph node invasion in high-risk prostate cancer: results in 201 consecutive patients treated with radical prostatectomy and extended pelvic lymph node dissection. Int Urol Nephrol. 2022;54(3):541–550. doi: 10.1007/s11255-022-03103-w
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Panunzio A, Sorce G, Hoeh B, et al. Effect of positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy on cancer-specific mortality in high/very high-risk prostate cancer patients with Gleason grade group 4–5. Prostate. 2023;83(3):268–276. doi: 10.1002/pros.24458
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delporte G, Henon F, Ploussard G, et al. Radical prostatectomy for locally advanced and high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Progrès en Urologie. 2018;28(16):875–889. doi: 10.1016/j.purol.2018.08.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parry MG, Cowling TE, Sujenthiran A, et al. Risk stratification for prostate cancer management: value of the Cambridge prognostic group classification for assessing treatment allocation. BMC Med. 2020;18(1):114. doi: 10.1186/s12916-020-01588-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gnanapragasam VJ, Bratt O, Muir K, et al. The Cambridge prognostic groups for improved prediction of disease mortality at diagnosis in primary non-metastatic prostate cancer: a validation study. BMC Med. 2018;16(1):31. doi: 10.1186/s12916-018-1019-5
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Van den Broeck T, van den Bergh RCN, Arfi N, et al. Prognostic value of biochemical recurrence following treatment with curative intent for prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2019;75(6):967–987. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.10.011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tilki D, Preisser F, Graefen M, et al. External validation of the European Association of urology biochemical recurrence risk groups to predict metastasis and mortality after radical prostatectomy in a European cohort. Eur Urol. 2019;75(6):896–900. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.03.016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oderda M, Diamand R, Albisinni S, et al. Indications for and complications of pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer: accuracy of available nomograms for the prediction of lymph node invasion. BJU Int. 2021;127(3):318–325. doi: 10.1111/bju.15220
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenberger BA, Zaorsky NG, Den RB. Comparison of radical prostatectomy versus radiation and androgen deprivation therapy strategies as primary treatment for high-risk localized prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Focus. 2020;6(2):404–418. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2019.11.007
   Google Scholar
• McKay RR, Feng FY, Wang AY, et al. Recent advances in the management of high-risk localized prostate cancer: local therapy, systemic therapy, and biomarkers to guide treatment decisions. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2020;40(40):e241–e252. doi: 10.1200/EDBK_279459
   Google Scholar
• Prendeville S, van der Kwast TH. Lymph node staging in prostate cancer: perspective for the pathologist. J Clin Pathol. 2016;69(12):1039–1045. doi: 10.1136/jclinpath-2016-203643
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boscolo-Berto R, Siracusano S, Porzionato A, et al. The underestimated posterior lymphatic drainage of the prostate: an historical overview and preliminary anatomical study on cadaver. Prostate. 2020;80(2):153–161. doi: 10.1002/pros.23927
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar