Clinical staging of prostate cancer: Reproducibility and clarification of issues

被引:12
作者
Campbell, T
Blasko, J
Crawford, ED
Forman, J
Hanks, G
Kuban, D
Montie, J
Moul, J
Pollack, A
Raghavan, D
Ray, P
Roach, M
Steinberg, G
Stone, N
Thompson, I
Vogelzang, N
Vijayakumar, S
机构
[1] Univ Illinois, Med Ctr, Dept Radiat Oncol MC933, Outpatient Care Ctr, Chicago, IL 60612 USA
[2] Brooke Army Med Ctr, San Antonio, TX USA
[3] Mt Sinai Med Ctr, New York, NY 10029 USA
[4] Univ Calif San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[5] Cook Cty Hosp, Chicago, IL 60612 USA
[6] Univ So Calif, Los Angeles, CA USA
[7] Univ Texas, MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[8] Uniformed Serv Univ Hlth Sci, Bethesda, MD 20814 USA
[9] Univ Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA
[10] Eastern Virginia Med Sch, Norfolk, VA 23501 USA
[11] Fox Chase Canc Ctr, Philadelphia, PA 19111 USA
[12] Wayne State Univ, Detroit, MI USA
[13] Univ Colorado, Denver, CO 80202 USA
[14] Seattle Prostate Inst, Seattle, WA USA
[15] Univ Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637 USA
关键词
prostate cancer; tumor-node-metastasis (TNM); cancer staging;
D O I
10.1002/ijc.1017.abs
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system for prostate cancer adopted in 1992 is based on tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) designations. It has been widely accepted for use in local and advanced disease. The purpose of this study was to assess reproducibility of staging among observers and to help clarify staging issues. Twelve prostate cancer cases were sent to 20 physicians with special expertise in prostate cancer including eight urologists, eight radiation oncologists, and four medical oncologists. Physicians were asked to assign a stage based on the 1992 AJCC clinical staging. The most frequently reported stage assigned to each case was taken to be the consensus. Agreement was the percentage of physicians who reported that particular stage. Seventy-five percent of the physicians responded. The overall agreement for assignment of T stage was 63.9%. Differences were found by specialty for inclusion of available information in designating a T stage. The overall agreement for N stage was 73.8%. The most common designation was Nx regardless of availability of a computed tomography scan. The overall agreement for M stage was 76.6%. Without a bone scan the most common designation was Mr regardless of Gleason grade or prostate-specific antigen (PSA). A frequent comment was that PSA was more indicative of disease extent than current clinical staging. The reproducibility of the 1992 clinical AJCC staging is poor even among experts in the field. This problem arises primarily from disagreement regarding which studies are included in assigning a stage. Some of these difficulties are addressed in the 1997 revision. However, the clinical staging does not address the true biological. significance of disease in many instances. (C) 2001 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:198 / 209
页数:12
相关论文
共 44 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1997, AJCC CANC STAGING MA
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1992, MANUAL STAGING CANC
[3]  
Bauer JJ, 1997, CANCER, V79, P952, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19970301)79:5<952::AID-CNCR12>3.3.CO
[4]  
2-I
[5]   5-YEAR TUMOR RECURRENCE RATES AFTER ANATOMICAL RADICAL RETROPUBIC PROSTATECTOMY FOR PROSTATE-CANCER [J].
CATALONA, WJ ;
SMITH, DS .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 1994, 152 (05) :1837-1842
[6]   USE OF ENDORECTAL SURFACE COIL MAGNETIC-RESONANCE-IMAGING FOR LOCAL STAGING OF PROSTATE-CANCER [J].
CHELSKY, MJ ;
SCHNALL, MD ;
SEIDMON, EJ ;
POLLACK, HM .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 1993, 150 (02) :391-395
[7]   PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN, DIGITAL RECTAL EXAMINATION, AND TRANSRECTAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY - THEIR ROLES IN DIAGNOSING EARLY PROSTATE-CANCER [J].
CUPP, MR ;
OESTERLING, JE .
MAYO CLINIC PROCEEDINGS, 1993, 68 (03) :297-306
[8]   PREDICTIVE VALUE OF CONTRALATERAL BIOPSIES IN UNILATERALLY PALPABLE PROSTATE-CANCER [J].
DANIELS, GF ;
MCNEAL, JE ;
STAMEY, TA .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 1992, 147 (03) :870-874
[9]  
DENOIX PF, 1944, B I NATL HYG PARIS, V5, P52
[10]   PREOPERATIVE ASSESSMENT OF PROSTATIC-CARCINOMA BY COMPUTERIZED-TOMOGRAPHY - WEAKNESSES AND NEW PERSPECTIVES [J].
ENGELER, CE ;
WASSERMAN, NF ;
ZHANG, G .
UROLOGY, 1992, 40 (04) :346-350