» Articles » PMID: 25288575

Clinical Predictors and Recommendations for Staging Computed Tomography Scan Among Men with Prostate Cancer

Overview
Journal Urology
Specialty Urology
Date 2014 Oct 8
PMID 25288575
Citations 9
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To identify clinical variables associated with a positive computed tomography (CT) scan and estimate the performance of imaging recommendations in patients from a diverse sample of urology practices.

Materials And Methods: This study comprised 2380 men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer seen at 28 practices in the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative from March 2012 through September 2013. Data included age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, Gleason score (GS), clinical T stage, total number of positive biopsy cores, whether or not the patient received a staging abdominal and/or pelvic CT scan, and CT scan result. We fit a multivariate logistic regression model to identify clinical variables associated with metastases detected by CT scan. We estimated the sensitivity and specificity of existing imaging recommendations.

Results: Among 643 men (27.4%) who underwent a staging CT scan, 62 men (9.6%) had a positive study. In the multivariate analysis, PSA, GS, and clinical T stage were independently associated with the occurrence of a positive CT scan (all P values <.05). The American Urological Association's Best Practice Statements' recommendations for imaging when PSA level >20 ng/mL or GS ≥ 8 or locally advanced cancer had a sensitivity of 87.3% and specificity of 82.6%. Compared with current practice, implementing this recommendation in the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative population was estimated to result in approximately 0.5% of positive study results being missed, and 26.1% of fewer study results overall.

Conclusion: Successful implementation of CT imaging criterion of PSA level >20, GS ≥ 8, or clinical stage ≥ T3 would ensure that CT scans are performed for almost all men who would have positive study results while reducing the number of negative study results.

Citing Articles

Appropriateness of Imaging for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer-Real World Data from the Pennsylvania Urologic Regional Collaboration (PURC).

Mercedes R, Head D, Zook E, Eidelman E, Tomaszewski J, Ginzburg S Curr Oncol. 2024; 31(8):4746-4752.

PMID: 39195337 PMC: 11352630. DOI: 10.3390/curroncol31080354.


Protocol for a prospective study evaluating circulating tumour cells status to predict radical prostatectomy treatment failure in localised prostate cancer patients (C-ProMeta-1).

Al-Hammouri T, Almeida-Magana R, Lawrence R, Duffy T, White L, Burke E BMC Cancer. 2023; 23(1):581.

PMID: 37353740 PMC: 10288675. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-023-11081-0.


A novel deep learning approach to extract Chinese clinical entities for lung cancer screening and staging.

Zhang H, Hu D, Duan H, Li S, Wu N, Lu X BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2021; 21(Suppl 2):214.

PMID: 34330277 PMC: 8323233. DOI: 10.1186/s12911-021-01575-x.


The past, present, and future of urological quality improvement collaboratives.

Reese A, Ginzburg S Transl Androl Urol. 2021; 10(5):2280-2288.

PMID: 34159110 PMC: 8185671. DOI: 10.21037/tau.2019.10.18.


Prospective monitoring of imaging guideline adherence by physicians in a surgical collaborative: comparison of statistical process control methods for detecting outlying performance.

Inadomi M, Singh K, Qi J, Dunn R, Linsell S, Denton B BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2020; 20(1):89.

PMID: 32404086 PMC: 7218839. DOI: 10.1186/s12911-020-1126-z.


References
1.
Johanes C, Monoarfa R, Ismail R, Umbas R . Anxiety level of early- and late-stage prostate cancer patients. Prostate Int. 2014; 1(4):177-82. PMC: 3879056. DOI: 10.12954/PI.13027. View

2.
Choi W, Williams S, Gu X, Lipsitz S, Nguyen P, Hu J . Overuse of imaging for staging low risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2011; 185(5):1645-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.12.033. View

3.
Begg C, Greenes R . Assessment of diagnostic tests when disease verification is subject to selection bias. Biometrics. 1983; 39(1):207-15. View

4.
Lavery H, Brajtbord J, Levinson A, Nabizada-Pace F, Pollard M, Samadi D . Unnecessary imaging for the staging of low-risk prostate cancer is common. Urology. 2010; 77(2):274-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2010.07.491. View

5.
Cagiannos I, Karakiewicz P, Eastham J, Ohori M, Rabbani F, Gerigk C . A preoperative nomogram identifying decreased risk of positive pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer. J Urol. 2003; 170(5):1798-803. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000091805.98960.13. View