Abstract
Purpose
To externally validate the performance characteristics of the Briganti’s risk stratification tool for baseline staging bone scan in patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer (PCa).
Methods
From 2009 onwards, a consecutive series of patients with PCa were enrolled. All patients were staged to evaluate the presence of bone metastasis (BM) with a conventional total-body Tc 99 m MDP scintigraphy performed regardless of baseline PCa characteristics. The area under the curve (AUC) estimates were used to test the accuracy of the Briganti’s risk stratification tool that recommended staging baseline bone scan for patients with a biopsy Gleason score >7 or with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) >10 ng/ml and palpable disease (cT2/T3). The new tool was compared to the European Association of Urology (EAU) guideline.
Results
A total of 313 patients were consecutively enrolled. Median age was 68 (range 49–95 years), and median PSA was 7 ng/ml (range 0.81–2,670). Twenty (6.4 %) patients presented BMs. Patients with BMs were significantly older, with higher PSA and a higher Gleason score (p = 0.001). The novel Briganti’s model was significantly (p = 0.001) more accurate (AUC: 0.75; CI: 0.632–0.859) than the EAU guideline (AUC: 0.64; CI: 0.52–0.761) for the prediction of BMs.
Conclusions
Our study validated in a group of patients with PCa the novel risk stratification tool proposed by Briganti, which presented a higher accuracy for baseline staging bone scan when compared with the EAU guideline. In our experience, this approach would further reduce (about 60 %) the use of staging baseline bone scan without compromising the ability to detect BMs in patients with PCa.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D (2011) Global cancer statistics. Cancer J Clin 2:69–90. doi:10.3322/caac.20107
Wolf AM, Wender RC, Etzioni RB et al (2010) American Cancer Society Prostate Cancer Advisory Committee: American Cancer Society guideline for the early detection of prostate cancer: update 2010. CA Cancer J Clin 60(2):70–98. doi:10.3322/caac.20066
Tombal B, Lecouvet F (2012) Modern detection of prostate cancer’s bone metastasis: is the bone scan era over? Adv in Urol 1–8. doi:10.1155/2012/893193
Nørgaard M, Jensen AØ, Jacobsen JB, Cetin K, Fryzek JP, Sørensen HT (2010) Skeletal related events, bone metastasis and survival of prostate cancer: a population based cohort study in Denmark (1999 to 2007). J Urol 184(1):162–167. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2010.03.034
Carlin BI, Andriole GL (2000) The natural history, skeletal complications and management of bone metastases in patients with prostate carcinoma. Cancer 88(12):2989–2994. doi:10.1002/1097-0142(20000615)88:12+<2989
Briganti A, Passoni N, Ferrari M et al (2010) When to perform bone scan in patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer: external validation of the currently available guidelines and proposal of a novel risk stratification tool. Eur Urol 7:551–558. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2009.12.023
Lai MH, Luk WH, Chan JC (2011) Predicting bone scan findings using PSA in patients newly diagnosed of prostate cancer: feasibility in Asian population. Urol Oncol 29(3):275–279. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2009.05.007
Yigitbasi O, Ozturk U, Goktug HN, Gucuk A, Bakirtas H (2011) Prognostic factors in metastatic prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 29(2):162–165. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2009.03.013
Lee SH, Chung MS, Park KK, Yom CD, Lee DH, Chung BH (2011) Is it suitable to eliminate bone scan for prostate cancer patients with PSA 20 ng/mL? World J Urol. doi:10.1007/s00345-011-0728-6
Heidenreich A, Aus G, Bolla M et al (2008) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Eur Urol 53:68–80. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2007.09.002
Miller DC, Murtagh DS, Suh RS et al (2011) Regional collaboration to improve radiographic staging practices among men with early stage prostate cancer. J Urol 186:844–849. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2011.04.078
Saigal CS, Pashos CL, Henning JM, Litwin MS (2002) Variations in use of imaging in a national sample of men with early-stage prostate cancer. Urology 59:400–404. doi:10.1016/S0090-4295(01)01543-6
Thompson I, Thrasher JB, Aus G et al (2007) Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update. J Urol 177:2106–2131. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2007.03.003
Clinical recommendations. National Comprehensive Cancer Network Web site. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp. Accessed 14 Mar 2012
De Nunzio C, Trucchi A, Miano R et al (2009) The number of positive cores for high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia on initial biopsy is associated with prostate cancer on second biopsy. J Urol 181:1069–1074. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2008.10.163
Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID et al (2002) American Joint Committee on Cancer staging manual, 6th edn. Springer, New York
Hricak H, Choyke PL, Eberhardt SC, Leibel SA, Scardino PT (2007) Imaging prostate cancer: a multidisciplinary perspective. Radiology 243:28–53. doi:10.1148/radiol.2431030580
Lin K, Szabo Z, Chin BB, Civelek AC (1999) The value of a baseline bone scan in patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. Clin Nucl Med 24:579–582
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
De Nunzio, C., Leonardo, C., Franco, G. et al. When to perform bone scan in patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer: external validation of a novel risk stratification tool. World J Urol 31, 365–369 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-012-0880-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-012-0880-7