Is Extraprostatic Extension of Cancer Predictable? A Review of Predictive Tools and an External Validation Based on a Large and a Single Center Cohort of Prostate Cancer Patients


      Our aim was to review and externally validate all the available predictive tools (PTs) predicting extraprostatic extension (EPE) using the area under the curve, calibration plots, and scaled Brier score.
      A literature search was performed showing 19 models predicting EPE. External validation was carried out on 6360 prostate cancer patients submitted to RP. Most of the PTs showed poor discrimination and unsatisfactory calibration.
      The majority of the available PTs are not reliable for the prediction of EPE in populations other than the development one; thus, they may not be completely appropriate for patients’ counselling or for surgical strategy preplanning.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Sanda MG
        • Cadeddu JA
        • Kirkby E
        • et al.
        Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline. Part II: recommended approaches and details of specific care options.
        J Urol. 2018; 199: 990-997
        • Mottet N
        • Bellmunt J
        • Bolla M
        • et al.
        EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent.
        Eur Urol. 2017; 71: 618-629
        • Alemozaffar M
        • Regan MM
        • Cooperberg MR
        • et al.
        Prediction of erectile function following treatment for prostate cancer.
        JAMA. 2011; 306: 1205-1214
        • Chung JS
        • Choi HY
        • Song HR
        • et al.
        Preoperative nomograms for predicting extracapsular extension in Korean men with localized prostate cancer: a multi-institutional clinicopathologic study.
        J Korean Med Sci. 2010; 25: 1443-1448
        • Rabbani F
        • Stapleton AM
        • Kattan MW
        • Wheeler TM
        • Scardino PT
        Factors predicting recovery of erections after radical prostatectomy.
        J Urol. 2000; 164: 1929-1934
        • Druskin SC
        • Liu JJ
        • Young A
        • et al.
        Prostate MRI prior to radical prostatectomy: effects on nerve sparing and pathological margin status.
        Res Rep Urol. 2017; 9: 55-63
        • Patel V
        • Sandri M
        • Grasso AAC
        • et al.
        A novel tool for predicting extracapsular extension during graded partial nerve sparing in radical prostatectomy.
        BJU Int. 2018; 121: 373-382
        • Sayyid R
        • Perlis N
        • Ahmad A
        • et al.
        Development and external validation of a biopsy-derived nomogram to predict risk of ipsilateral extraprostatic extension.
        BJU Int. 2017; 120: 76-82
        • Partin AW
        • Yoo J
        • Carter HB
        • et al.
        The use of prostate specific antigen, clinical stage and Gleason score to predict pathological stage in men with localized prostate cancer.
        J Urol. 1993; 150: 110-114
        • Bostwick DG
        • Qian J
        • Bergstralh E
        • et al.
        Prediction of capsular perforation and seminal vesicle invasion in prostate cancer.
        J Urol. 1996; 155: 1361-1367
        • Partin AW
        • Kattan MW
        • Subong EN
        • et al.
        Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update.
        JAMA. 1997; 277: 1445-1451
        • Egawa S
        • Suyama K
        • Matsumoto K
        • et al.
        Improved predictability of extracapsular extension and seminal vesicle involvement based on clinical and biopsy findings in prostate cancer in Japanese men.
        Urology. 1998; 52: 433-440
        • Egawa S
        • Suyama K
        • Arai Y
        • et al.
        A study of pretreatment nomograms to predict pathological stage and biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy for clinically resectable prostate cancer in Japanese men.
        Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2001; 31: 74-81
        • Partin AW
        • Mangold LA
        • Lamm DM
        • Walsh PC
        • Epstein JI
        • Pearson JD
        Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium.
        Urology. 2001; 58: 843-848
        • Ohori M
        • Kattan MW
        • Koh H
        • et al.
        Predicting the presence and side of extracapsular extension: a nomogram for staging prostate cancer.
        J Urol. 2004; 171 (discussion 1849): 1844-1849
        • Song C
        • Kang T
        • Ro JY
        • Lee MS
        • Kim CS
        • Ahn H
        Nomograms for the prediction of pathologic stage of clinically localized prostate cancer in Korean men.
        J Korean Med Sci. 2005; 20: 262-266
        • Tsuzuki T
        • Hernandez DJ
        • Aydin H
        • Trock B
        • Walsh PC
        • Epstein JI
        Prediction of extraprostatic extension in the neurovascular bundle based on prostate needle biopsy pathology, serum prostate specific antigen and digital rectal examination.
        J Urol. 2005; 173: 450-453
        • Steuber T
        • Graefen M
        • Haese A
        • et al.
        Validation of a nomogram for prediction of side specific extracapsular extension at radical prostatectomy.
        J Urol. 2006; 175 (discussion 944): 939-944
        • Makarov DV
        • Trock BJ
        • Humphreys EB
        • et al.
        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. 2007; 69: 1095-1101
        • Naito S
        • Kuroiwa K
        • Kinukawa N
        • et al.
        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. 2008; 180 (discussion 909-910): 904-909
        • Huang Y
        • Isharwal S
        • Haese A
        • et al.
        Prediction of patient-specific risk and percentile cohort risk of pathological stage outcome using continuous prostate-specific antigen measurement, clinical stage and biopsy Gleason score.
        BJU Int. 2011; 107: 1562-1569
        • Satake N
        • Ohori M
        • Yu C
        • et al.
        Development and internal validation of a nomogram predicting extracapsular extension in radical prostatectomy specimens.
        Int J Urol. 2010; 17: 267-272
        • Fanning DM
        • Yue F
        • Fitzpatrick JM
        • Watson RW
        Novel predictive tools for Irish radical prostatectomy pathological outcomes: development and validation.
        Ir J Med Sci. 2010; 179: 187-195
        • Jeong CW
        • Jeong SJ
        • Hong SK
        • et al.
        Nomograms to predict the pathological stage of clinically localized prostate cancer in Korean men: comparison with western predictive tools using decision curve analysis.
        Int J Urol. 2012; 19: 846-852
        • Eifler JB
        • Feng Z
        • Lin BM
        • et al.
        An updated prostate cancer staging nomogram (Partin tables) based on cases from 2006 to 2011.
        BJU Int. 2013; 111: 22-29
        • Tosoian JJ
        • Chappidi M
        • Feng Z
        • et al.
        Prediction of pathological stage based on clinical stage, serum prostate-specific antigen, and biopsy Gleason score: Partin Tables in the contemporary era.
        BJU Int. 2017; 119: 676-683
        • Mehralivand S
        • Shih JH
        • Rais-Bahrami S
        • et al.
        A magnetic resonance imaging-based prediction model for prostate biopsy risk stratification.
        JAMA Oncol. 2018; 4: 678-685
        • Toll DB
        • Janssen KJM
        • Vergouwe Y
        • Moons KGM
        Validation, updating and impact of clinical prediction rules: a review.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2008; 61: 1085-1094
        • Siontis GC
        • Tzoulaki I
        • Castaldi PJ
        • Ioannidis JP
        External validation of new risk prediction models is infrequent and reveals worse prognostic discrimination.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2015; 68: 25-34
        • Collins GS
        • Reitsma JB
        • Altman DG
        • Moons KGM
        Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement.
        Eur Urol. 2015; 67: 1142-1151
        • Patel VR
        • Tully AS
        • Holmes R
        • Lindsay J
        Robotic radical prostatectomy in the community setting—the learning curve and beyond: initial 200 cases.
        J Urol. 2005; 174: 269-272
        • Greene F
        • Page D
        • Fleming I
        • Fritz A
        • Bach C
        • Haller D
        American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual.
        6th ed. Springer, New York2002
        • Schatloff O
        • Kameh D
        • Giedelman C
        • et al.
        Proposal of a method to assess and report the extent of residual neurovascular tissue present in radical prostatectomy specimens.
        BJU Int. 2013; 112: E301-E306
        • Abaza R.
        The robotic surgery era and the role of laparoscopy training.
        Ther Adv Urol. 2009; 1: 161-165
        • Hosmer JDW
        • Lemeshow S
        • Sturdivant RX
        Applied Logistic Regression.
        Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, USA2013
        • Steyerberg EW
        • Vickers AJ
        • Cook NR
        • et al.
        Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for some traditional and novel measures.
        Epidemiology. 2010; 21: 128-138
        • Van Hoorde K
        • Van Huffel S
        • Timmerman D
        • Bourne T
        • Van Calster B
        A spline-based tool to assess and visualize the calibration of multiclass risk predictions.
        J Biomed Inform. 2015; 54: 283-293
        • Austin PC.
        Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples.
        Stat Med. 2009; 28: 3083-3107
        • de Rooij M
        • Hamoen EH
        • Witjes JA
        • Barentsz JO
        • Rovers MM
        Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for local staging of prostate cancer: a diagnostic meta-analysis.
        Eur Urol. 2016; 70: 233-245
        • Jansen BHE
        • Nieuwenhuijzen JA
        • Oprea-Lager DE
        • et al.
        Adding multiparametric MRI to the MSKCC and Partin nomograms for primary prostate cancer: improving local tumor staging?.
        Urol Oncol. 2019; 37: 181.e1-181.e6
        • Rayn KN
        • Bloom JB
        • Gold SA
        • et al.
        Added value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to clinical nomograms for predicting adverse pathology in prostate cancer.
        J Urol. 2018; 200: 1041-1047
        • Schlomm T
        • Tennstedt P
        • Huxhold C
        • et al.
        Neurovascular structure-adjacent frozen-section examination (NeuroSAFE) increases nerve-sparing frequency and reduces positive surgical margins in open and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: experience after 11,069 consecutive patients.
        Eur Urol. 2012; 62: 333-340
        • Gillitzer R
        • Thuroff C
        • Fandel T
        • et al.
        Intraoperative peripheral frozen sections do not significantly affect prognosis after nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer.
        BJU Int. 2011; 107: 755-759
        • Clement C
        • Maurin C
        • Villeret J
        • et al.
        [Head to head comparison of two currently used nomograms predicting the risk of side specific extra capsular extension to indicate nerve sparing during radical prostatectomy for treatment of prostate cancer].
        Progres en urologie: journal de l'Association francaise d'urologie et de la Societe francaise d'urologie. 2014; 24: 581-587
        • Jaderling F
        • Nyberg T
        • Blomqvist L
        • Bjartell A
        • Steineck G
        • Carlsson S
        Accurate prediction tools in prostate cancer require consistent assessment of included variables.
        Scand J Urol. 2016; 50: 260-266
        • Turo R
        • Forster JA
        • West RM
        • Prescott S
        • Paul AB
        • Cross WR
        Do prostate cancer nomograms give accurate information when applied to European patients?.
        Scand J Urol. 2015; 49: 16-24
        • Bhojani N
        • Salomon L
        • Capitanio U
        • et al.
        External validation of the updated partin tables in a cohort of French and Italian men.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009; 73: 347-352
        • Augustin H
        • Isbarn H
        • Auprich M
        • et al.
        Head to head comparison of three generations of Partin tables to predict final pathological stage in clinically localised prostate cancer.
        Eur J Cancer. 2010; 46: 2235-2241
        • Augustin H
        • Eggert T
        • Wenske S
        • et al.
        Comparison of accuracy between the Partin tables of 1997 and 2001 to predict final pathological stage in clinically localized prostate cancer.
        J Urol. 2004; 171: 177-181
        • Karakiewicz PI
        • Bhojani N
        • Capitanio U
        • et al.
        External validation of the updated Partin tables in a cohort of North American men.
        J Urol. 2008; 180 (discussion 902-893): 898-902
        • Dalton JE.
        Flexible recalibration of binary clinical prediction models.
        Stat Med. 2013; 32: 282-289
        • Martini A
        • Gupta A
        • Lewis SC
        • et al.
        Development and internal validation of a side-specific, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-based nomogram for the prediction of extracapsular extension of prostate cancer.
        BJU Int. 2018; 122: 1025-1033
        • Thalgott M
        • Duwel C
        • Rauscher I
        • et al.
        One-stop shop whole-body (68)Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI compared to clinical nomograms for preoperative T- and N-Staging of high-risk prostate cancer.
        J Nucl Med. 2018; 59: 1850-1856
        • von Klot CJ
        • Merseburger AS
        • Boker A
        • et al.
        (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT imaging predicting intraprostatic tumor extent, extracapsular extension and seminal vesicle invasion prior to radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer.
        Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017; 51: 314-322
        • Dean LW
        • Assel M
        • Sjoberg DD
        • et al.
        Clinical usefulness of total length of Gleason pattern 4 on biopsy in men with grade group 2 prostate cancer.
        J Urol. 2019; 201: 77-82