Table 6 : Addition of indenpendent prognostic information to the Gleason-score.


Authors

 

Year Journal Number of patients Months of follow-up Significance p Flow/Image
cytometry
Diagnosis/
Prognosis
Comment

After RPE

Oxford level 2b

Bantis et al., [175] 2009 Tumori 112 60 0.001 ICM P pT2a-c, pT3a
Pretorius et al., [16] 2009 Cell Oncol 186 73.3 <0.001 ICM   GS 7
Ward et al., [198] 2005 BJU international 816 126.6 0.008 FCM   pT3 only
Bantis et al., [176] 2005 J Exp Clin Cancer Res 70 60 <0.007 ICM P --
Deliveliotis et al., [177] 2003 World J Urol 84 45 0.0074 FCM P --
Amling et al., [178] 1999 J Urol 106 120 0.002 FCM   After external radiation
Ross et al., [225] 1999 Urology 211 60 <0.001 FCM P Prediction of recurrence
Blute et al., [222] 1997 Adult Urology 2712 At primary diagnosis 0.005 FCM D Correlation with positive margins
Lerner et al., [181] 1996 J Urol 904 42 p 0.0089 FCM   pT1, pT2
Ross et al., [170] 1994 Cancer 89 31.2 0.006 ICM P Metastases & recurrences x3
Blute et al., [185] 1989 J Urol 315 96 0.0004 FCM P Stages A, B
Winkler at al. [186] 1988 Mayo Clin Proc 91 90 <0.001 FCM P Low and high GS

Oxford level 3b

Isharwal et al., [176] 2009 J Urol 370 3 AUC-ROC
+1.5%
ICM D ECS
Ross et al., [225] 1999 Am J Surg Pathol 111 27 0.002 ICM P Disease recurrence
Di Silverio et al., [215] 1996 Europ Urol 85 35 0.05 FCM P --
Hawkins et al., [187] 1995 Urology 894 100 <0.05 FCM P Partially HT
Ross et al., [170] 1994 Mod Pathol 56 28.8 0.0026 ICM P --
Tinari et al., [203] 1993 Cancer 81 84 0.0044 FCM P Stages T1–T4
Voges et al., [189] 1993 Eur Urol 85 70 0.001 FCM   Time to recurrence
Montgomery et al., [190] 1990 Arch Surg 261 240 0.001 FCM P Progression & cause spec. survival
Nativ et al., [184] 1989 Mayo Clin Proc 38 94.8 0.002 FCM P GS low-grade subgroup

After TUR

Oxford level 3b

Nielsen et al., [226] 1993 APMIS 79 120 0.0035 FCM P Grading acc. to Shelley

After external radiation

Oxford level 2b

Pollack et al., [205] 2003 J Clin Oncol 149 108 0.03 ICM P Survival

Oxford level 3b

Song et al., [206] 1992 J Urol 65 >120 <0.0001 ICM P Mayo Grade

After brachytherapy

Oxford level 2b

Stephensen et al., [207] 1987 Cancer Res 82 91.8 0.0109 FCM   Pelvic lymph node dissection, D1, N+

Oxford level 3b

Peters-Gee et al., [60] 1992 Cancer 51 52 <0.05 ICM   --

After hormonal therapy

Oxford level 2b

Martinez-Jabaloyas et al., [199] 2004 Actas Urol Espan 54 120 0.009 ICM P All with bone metastases
Martinez-Jabaloyas et al., [208] 2002 Urology 127 >120 0.031 FCM P --

Oxford level 3b

Pollack et al., [205] 2003 J Clin Oncol 149 96 0.005 ICM P After external radiation
Ahlgren et al., [210] 1997 Urology 96 176 0.0004 ICM P FNABs
Forsslund et al., [211] 1996 Cancer 334 360 0.001 ICM P FNABs
Vesalainen et al., [169] 1994 Br J Cancer 101 156 0.058 FCM P --
Di Silverio et al., [201] 1992 Eur Urol 80 60 <0.05 FCM P --
Fordham et al., [217] 1986 Br J Surg 72 6-144 <0.001 FCM P Ploidy + GS better than GS alone

After active surveillance

Oxford level 2b

Adolfsson et al., [197] 1990 J Urol 146 50 0.018 FCM Non-
Progression
FNABs. Therapy if progressed

After TUR

Oxford level 2b

Borre et al., [219] 1998 Prostate 120 180 0.024 FCM P 96 WHO low grades only

Bold p-values refer to Cox multivariate regression analysis.

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