Table 2 : Reviews dealing with DNA-cytometry in prostate cancer.

Authors Year Publications
Systematic Flow/Image
Prognostic significance Comparison
with other

Buhmeida et al., [38] 2006 14 No FCM&ICM Yes "Predicts P significantly in organ
confined disease"
Yes N=7
Montironi et al., [39] 2006 2 No FCM No Not done No
Epstein et al., [40] 2005 18 No FCM&ICM Yes "Ploidy looks promising
following RPE"
Yes N=16
Ross et al., [41] 2003 8 No FCM&ICM No DNA-ploidy=CAP category II Yes N=28
Chakravanti and Zhai et al., [42] 2003 8 No FCM&ICM No Predicts P independently Yes N=29
Mazzuchetti et al., [43] 2002 8 No FCM&ICM No "Provides important prognostic
Yes N=1
Miller et al., [44] 2001 6 No FCM&ICM No "Questionable independent variable" Yes N=3
Bostwick et al., [45] 2000 5 No FCM&ICM No DNA-ploidy=CAP category II Yes N=6
Sakr and Grignon et al., [46] 1997 16 No FCM&ICM No "Good potential as prognostic marker" Yes N=3
Mikuz., [47] 1997 4 No FCM&ICM No "Difficult to understand why these well
documented data have not yet gained
access to treatment protocols".
Schröder et al., [48] 1994 36 No FCM&ICM Yes WHO-consensus conference:
"DNA-ploidy is of value in treatment
decisions, particularly when
surveillance is a treatment option".
"DNA-ploidy should uniformly be
studied in clinical trials, particularly in
patients with localized cancer".
Shankey et al., [26] 1993 ? No FCM Yes "Any sample shown to contain
representative tumor can provide
meaningful information".
Lieber et al., [49] 1992 12 No FCM&ICM No "DNA-diploid tumors have a better
prognosis than tumors of a similar
stage and grade that are non-diploid".
Deitch et al., [50] 1992 8 No FCM No "FCM has much to tell us about the
natural history and biologic behaviour
of prostate cancer".
Böcking et al., [51] 1992 34 No FCM&ICM Yes "DNA-cytometry is a powerful tool for
grading the malignant potential of
prostatic carcinomas, superior to
histological and cytological evaluation".

Böcking et al.Pathology Discovery  2014 2:7DOI : 10.7243/2052-7896-2-7