Under the auspices of the College of American Pathologists, a multidisciplinary group of clinicians, pathologists, and statisticians considered prognostic and predictive factors in prostate cancer ...and stratified them into categories reflecting the strength of published evidence and taking into account the expert opinions of the Prostate Working Group members.
Factors were ranked according to the previous College of American Pathologists categorical rankings: category I, factors proven to be of prognostic importance and useful in clinical patient management; category II, factors that have been extensively studied biologically and clinically but whose importance remains to be validated in statistically robust studies; and category III, all other factors not sufficiently studied to demonstrate their prognostic value. Factors in categories I and II were considered with respect to variations in methods of analysis, interpretation of findings, reporting of data, and statistical evaluation. For each factor, detailed recommendations for improvement were made. Recommendations were based on the following aims: (1) increasing uniformity and completeness of pathologic evaluation of tumor specimens, (2) enhancing the quality of data collected pertaining to existing prognostic factors, and (3) improving patient care.
Factors ranked in category I included preoperative serum prostate-specific antigen level, TNM stage grouping, histologic grade as Gleason score, and surgical margin status. Category II factors included tumor volume, histologic type, and DNA ploidy. Factors in category III included perineural invasion, neuroendocrine differentiation, microvessel density, nuclear roundness, chromatin texture, other karyometric factors, proliferation markers, prostate-specific antigen derivatives, and other factors (oncogenes, tumor suppressor genes, apoptosis genes, etc).
Recent developments in the field of molecular techniques have provided new tools that have led to the discovery of many new promising biomarkers for prostate cancer. These biomarkers may be ...instrumental in the development of new tests that will have a high specificity for the diagnosis and prognosis of prostate cancer. A biomarker is defined as a molecular test that provides additional information to currently available clinical and pathological tests. Biomarkers should be reproducible (both within and between institutes) and have an impact on clinical management. For diagnostic purposes it is important that potential biomarkers are tested in terms of tissue specificity and their discrimination potential between prostate cancer, normal prostate and benign prostatic hyperplasia. The results of (multiple) biomarker-based assays may enhance the specificity of cancer detection. There is an urgent need for molecular prognostic biomarkers for predicting the biological behavior and outcome of cancer.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
3.
Prognostic Factors in Prostate Cancer Bostwick, David G; Grignon, David J; Hammond, M. Elizabeth H ...
Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine (1976),
07/2000, Letnik:
124, Številka:
7
Journal Article
Recenzirano
* Background.--Under the auspices of the College of American Pathologists, a multidisciplinary group of clinicians, pathologists, and statisticians considered prognostic and predictive factors in ...prostate cancer and stratified them into categories reflecting the strength of published evidence and taking into account the expert opinions of the Prostate Working Group members. Materials and Methods.--Factors were ranked according to the previous College of American Pathologists categorical rankings: category I, factors proven to be of prognostic importance and useful in clinical patient management; category II, factors that have been extensively studied biologically and clinically but whose importance remains to be validated in statistically robust studies; and category III, all other factors not sufficiently studied to demonstrate their prognostic value. Factors in categories I and II were considered with respect to variations in methods of analysis, interpretation of findings, reporting of data, and statistical evaluation. For each factor, detailed recommendations for improvement were made. Recommendations were based on the following aims: (1) increasing uniformity and completeness of pathologic evaluation of tumor specimens, (2) enhancing the quality of data collected pertaining to existing prognostic factors, and (3) improving patient care. Results and Conclusions.--Factors ranked in category I included preoperative serum prostate-specific antigen level, TNM stage grouping, histologic grade as Gleason score, and surgical margin status. Category II factors included tumor volume, histologic type, and DNA ploidy. Factors in category III included perineural invasion, neuroendocrine differentiation, microvessel density, nuclear roundness, chromatin texture, other karyometric factors, proliferation markers, prostate-specific antigen derivatives, and other factors (oncogenes, tumor suppressor genes, apoptosis genes, etc). (Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;124:995-1000)