Irish Journal of Medical Science

, Volume 179, Issue 2, pp 187–195 | Cite as

Novel predictive tools for Irish radical prostatectomy pathological outcomes: development and validation

  • D. M. Fanning
  • F. Yue
  • J. M. Fitzpatrick
  • R. W. G. Watson
Original Article



We developed and validated prostate cancer predictive models for Irish patients, allowing individualised predictions of radical prostatectomy pathological outcomes.


Retrospective review of the Irish Prostate Cancer Research Consortium database from 2003 to 2008 was performed. Two predictive models were formulated: a replica of the Partin tables (n = 169) and a look-up table based on PSA and biopsy Gleason Score (n = 253). Clinico-pathological parameters were compared to the Partin data set. Internal validation was performed.


In total, 70% of patients were at clinical stage T1c. 5.8% had a PSA less than 4.1 ng/ml, whereas 25% of the Partin patients had a PSA in this range. Maximal predictive accuracy was seen for seminal vesicle invasion (area under the curve = 72%). Prediction of extra-prostatic extension and lymph node involvement was only equivalent to that of a chance phenomenon.


Our current results do not support the introduction of the formulated predictive models into routine clinical practice.


Nomogram Prognosis Prostate cancer Prostatectomy Tumour staging 



We thank the members of the Irish Prostate Cancer Research Consortium, particularly Mr. R. Power from Beaumont Hospital, Mr. T. Lynch from St. James’s Hospital and Lakshmi Parameswaran for their support. Funding for this research was acquired from the Irish Cancer Society, the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland and the British Urology Foundation. The aforementioned funding sources played no role in study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the paper for publication.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest.


  1. 1.
    Ferlay J, Autier P, Boniol M, Heanue M, Colombet M, Boyle P (2007) Estimates of the cancer incidence and mortality in Europe in 2006. Ann Oncol 18(3):581–592. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdl498 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Trends in Irish cancer incidence 1994–2002 with projections to 2020. June 2006, National Cancer Registry IrelandGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    O’Lorcain P, Comber H (2007) Prostate cancer mortality predictions for Ireland up to 2015. Eur J Cancer Prev 16(4):328–333. doi:10.1097/01.cej.0000236248.63489.4c CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Makarov DV, Trock BJ, Humphreys EB, Mangold LA, Walsh PC, Epstein JI, Partin AW (2007) Updated nomogram to predict pathologic stage of prostate cancer given prostate-specific antigen level, clinical stage, and biopsy Gleason score (Partin Tables) based on cases from 2000 to 2005. Urology 69(6):1095–1101. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2007.03.042 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gallina A, Chun FK, Briganti A, Shariat SF, Montorsi F, Salonia A, Erbersdobler A, Rigatti P, Valiquette L, Huland H, Graefen M, Karakiewicz PI (2007) Development and split-sample validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of seminal vesicle invasion at radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 52(1):98–105. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2007.01.060 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eastham JA, Scardino PT, Kattan MW (2008) Predicting an optimal outcome after radical prostatectomy: the trifecta nomogram. J Urol 179(6):2207–2210. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2008.01.106 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chun FK, Scardino PT, Erbersdobler A, Currlin E, Walz J, Schlomm T, Haese A, Heinzer H, McCormack M, Huland H, Graefen M, Karakiewicz PI (2006) Development and internal validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of prostate cancer Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology. Eur Urol 49(5):820–826. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2005.11.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shariat SF, Karakiewicz PI, Margulis V, Kattan MW (2008) Inventory of prostate cancer predictive tools. Curr Opin Urol 18(3):279–296. doi:10.1097/MOU.0b013e3282f9b3e5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shariat SF, Karakiewicz PI, Roehrborn CG, Kattan MW (2008) An updated catalog of prostate cancer predictive tools. Cancer 113(11):3075–3099. doi:10.1002/cncr.23908 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Partin AW, Yoo J, Carter HB, Pearson JD, Chan DW, Epstein JI, Walsh PC (1993) The use of prostate specific antigen, clinical stage and Gleason score to predict pathological stage in men with localized prostate cancer. J Urol 150(1):110–114PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Partin AW, Kattan MW, Subong EN, Walsh PC, Wojno KJ, Oesterling JE, Scardino PT, Pearson JD (1997) Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer: a multi-institutional update. JAMA 277(18):1445–1451. doi:10.1001/jama.277.18.1445 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Partin AW, Mangold LA, Lamm DM, Walsh PC, Epstein JI, Pearson JD (2001) Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium. Urology 58(6):843–848. doi:10.1016/S0090-4295(01)01441-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Taylor JM, Ankerst DP, Andridge RR (2008) Validation of biomarker-based risk prediction models. Clin Cancer Res 14(19):5977–5983. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-4534 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bhojani N, Ahyai S, Graefen M, Capitanio U, Suardi N, Shariat SF, Jeldres C, Erbersdobler A, Schlomm T, Haese A, Steuber T, Heinzer H, Montorsi F, Huland H, Karakiewicz PI (2009) Partin Tables cannot accurately predict the pathological stage at radical prostatectomy. Eur J Surg Oncol 35(2):123–128. doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2008.07.013 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bhojani N, Salomon L, Capitanio U, Suardi N, Shariat SF, Jeldres C, Zini L, Pharand D, Péloquin F, Arjane P, Abbou CC, De La Taille A, Montorsi F, Karakiewicz PI (2009) External validation of the updated Partin Tables in a cohort of French and Italian men. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 73(2):347–352. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.04.082 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gleason DF (1966) Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother Rep 50(3):125–128PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zorn KC, Gallina A, Hutterer GC, Walz J, Shalhav AL, Zagaja GP, Valiquette L, Gofrit ON, Orvieto MA, Taxy JB, Karakiewicz PI (2007) External validation of a nomogram for prediction of side-specific extracapsular extension at robotic radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 21(11):1345–1351. doi:10.1089/end.2007.0044 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Briganti A, Gallina A, Suardi N, Chun FK, Walz J, Heuer R, Salonia A, Haese A, Perrotte P, Valiquette L, Graefen M, Rigatti P, Montorsi F, Huland H, Karakiewicz PI (2008) A nomogram is more accurate than a regression tree in predicting lymph node invasion in prostate cancer. BJU Int 101(5):556–560. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.07321.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Quinlan DM, Partin AW, Walsh PC (1995) Can aggressive prostatic carcinomas be identified and can their natural history be altered by treatment? Urology 46(3)(Suppl A):77–82. doi:10.1016/S0090-4295(99)80254-4
  20. 20.
    Gosselaar C, Kranse R, Roobol MJ, Roemeling S, Schröder FH (2008) The interobserver variability of digital rectal examination in a large randomized trial for the screening of prostate cancer. Prostate 68(9):985–993. doi:10.1002/pros.20759 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fitzpatrick JM, Banu E, Oudard S (2009) Prostate-specific antigen kinetics in localized and advanced prostate cancer. BJU Int 103(5):578–587. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08345.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    King CR (2000) Patterns of prostate cancer biopsy grading: trends and clinical implications. Int J Cancer 90(6):305–311. doi:10.1002/1097-0215(20001220)90:6<305::AID-IJC1>3.0.CO;2-U CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Karakiewicz PI, Bhojani N, Capitanio U, Reuther AM, Suardi N, Jeldres C, Pharand D, Péloquin F, Perrotte P, Shariat SF, Klein EA (2008) External validation of the updated Partin Tables in a cohort of North American men. J Urol 180(3):898–902. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2008.05.044 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Blute ML, Bergstralh EJ, Partin AW, Walsh PC, Kattan MW, Scardino PT, Montie JE, Pearson JD, Slezak JM, Zincke H (2000) Validation of Partin Tables for predicting pathological stage of clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 164(5):1591–1595. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(05)67035-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Heath EI, Kattan MW, Powell IJ, Sakr W, Brand TC, Rybicki BA, Thompson IM, Aronson WJ, Terris MK, Kane CJ, Presti JC Jr, Amling CL, Freedland SJ (2008) The effect of race/ethnicity on the accuracy of the 2001 Partin Tables for predicting pathologic stage of localized prostate cancer. Urology 71(1):151–155. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2007.08.016 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ayyathurai R, Ananthakrishnan K, Rajasundaram R, Knight RJ, Toussi H, Srinivasan V (2006) Predictive ability of Partin Tables 2001 in a Welsh population. Urol Int 76(3):217–222. doi:10.1159/000091622 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gao X, Ren S, Lu X, Xu C, Sun Y (2008) The newer the better? Comparison of the 1997 and 2001 Partin Tables for pathologic stage prediction of prostate cancer in China. Urology 72(5):1096–1101. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2008.07.047 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Naito S, Kuroiwa K, Kinukawa N, Goto K, Koga H, Ogawa O, Murai M, Shiraishi T, Clinicopathological Research Group for Localized Prostate Cancer Investigators (2008) Validation of Partin Tables and development of a preoperative nomogram for Japanese patients with clinically localized prostate cancer using 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology consensus on Gleason grading: data from the Clinicopathological Research Group for Localized Prostate Cancer. J Urol 180(3):904–909. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2008.05.047 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Drummond FJ, Carsin AE, Sharp L, Comber H (2009) Factors prompting PSA-testing of asymptomatic men in a country with no guidelines: a national survey of general practitioners. BMC Fam Pract 12(10):3. doi:10.1186/1471-2296-10-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lim CH, Quinlan DM (2007) Are doctors examining prostates in university hospital? Urology 70(5):843–845. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2007.07.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Quinlan MR, Teahan S, Mulvin D, Quinlan DM (2007) Is digital rectal examination still necessary in the early detection of prostate cancer? Ir J Med Sci 176(3):161–163. doi:10.1007/s11845-007-0018-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. M. Fanning
    • 1
  • F. Yue
    • 1
    • 2
  • J. M. Fitzpatrick
    • 3
  • R. W. G. Watson
    • 1
  1. 1.UCD School of Medicine and Medical Science, Conway Institute of Biomolecular and Biomedical ResearchUniversity College DublinDublin 4Ireland
  2. 2.UCD School of Mathematical SciencesUniversity College DublinDublin 4Ireland
  3. 3.UCD School of Medicine and Medical ScienceMater Misericordiae University HospitalDublin 7Ireland

Personalised recommendations