Understanding the Partin Tables

I am beginning to understand the Partin Tables but have some questions:

My "numbers" for purposes of the Partin Tables are:

PSA-3.14
Gleason-6
Clinical Stage-T1c

Based upon my numbers, the Partin tables show:


Organ confined -88 (86-90)
Extraprostatic extension-11 (10-13)
Seminal vesicle- 1 (0-1)
Lymph node -0 (0-0)

As I understand it, that means that the probabliity that the cancer is
"organ confined" is %88, "extraprostatic" %11 and so forth. Obviously
the further the cancer has spread from the prostate itself, the more
"serious" the cancer probably is.

So in trying to understand these numbers, if we have prostate cancer
our wish would be that it be "organ confined" because we all know that
very many men die of other causes while having "organ confined"
prostate cancer. In my case it appears that as long as all my numbers
(PSA,Gleason, Clinical Stage) remain the same then we can say that the
odds that my cancer is "organ confined" is about 90%-9 out of 10.

Would appreciate any feedback regarding my analysis of how I understand
the Partin tables.

Thanks,

Sy

Sy wrote:
> I am beginning to understand the Partin Tables but have some questions:
>
> My "numbers" for purposes of the Partin Tables are:
>
> PSA-3.14
> Gleason-6
> Clinical Stage-T1c
>
> Based upon my numbers, the Partin tables show:
>
>
> Organ confined -88 (86-90)
> Extraprostatic extension-11 (10-13)
> Seminal vesicle- 1 (0-1)
> Lymph node -0 (0-0)
>
> As I understand it, that means that the probabliity that the cancer is
> "organ confined" is %88, "extraprostatic" %11 and so forth. Obviously
> the further the cancer has spread from the prostate itself, the more
> "serious" the cancer probably is.
>
> So in trying to understand these numbers, if we have prostate cancer
> our wish would be that it be "organ confined" because we all know that
> very many men die of other causes while having "organ confined"
> prostate cancer. In my case it appears that as long as all my numbers
> (PSA,Gleason, Clinical Stage) remain the same then we can say that the
> odds that my cancer is "organ confined" is about 90%-9 out of 10.
>
> Would appreciate any feedback regarding my analysis of how I understand
> the Partin tables.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sy
That's exactly how I understand the meaning of the tables, having read
Patrick Walsh's book (Walsh co-developed the tables). Note that based on
the 2001 tables the organ confined/extraprostatic ratio would be 84/15
rather than 88/11. I assume you have used more recent statistics. That
BTW is the caveat that Walsh adds: the tables are just statistics; your
chances may vary.

Hello Sy,
Organ confined prostate cancer is cancer that has not spread. Like a
forest fire, if we can catch the start of the blaze, and "confine" that, we
have saved the forest. And like a forest fire if a spark gets out, and wind
catches it, we have more trouble and or metastisis...spread.
No man really wishes for either.....confined or not.
Not being a Dr. but knowing the rudiments of this ordeal, the Partin
Tables give clues as to the type and spread of cancer. the slides the Dr.s
have can give them a clue to the aggressive nature of the type of cancer.
Having organ confined cancer does not guarantee that we will die of
another ailment and not prostate cancer. That is why we have these tests to
determine the type and spread of cancer so that like the forest fire, it can
be treated before it causes further harm.

Sorry for the simplistic way of stating this ordeal, and you do have good
numbers for aggressive treatment at this stage.
Wish you the best...
jloomis prostate cancer @ 49 (1999) RP Nov 1999. Still kicking........











"Sy" <stuttgart6@lycos . com > wrote in message
news:151220070649554989%stuttgart6@lycos . com ...
>
> I am beginning to understand the Partin Tables but have some questions:
>
> My "numbers" for purposes of the Partin Tables are:
>
> PSA-3.14
> Gleason-6
> Clinical Stage-T1c
>
> Based upon my numbers, the Partin tables show:
>
>
> Organ confined -88 (86-90)
> Extraprostatic extension-11 (10-13)
> Seminal vesicle- 1 (0-1)
> Lymph node -0 (0-0)
>
> As I understand it, that means that the probabliity that the cancer is
> "organ confined" is %88, "extraprostatic" %11 and so forth. Obviously
> the further the cancer has spread from the prostate itself, the more
> "serious" the cancer probably is.
>
> So in trying to understand these numbers, if we have prostate cancer
> our wish would be that it be "organ confined" because we all know that
> very many men die of other causes while having "organ confined"
> prostate cancer. In my case it appears that as long as all my numbers
> (PSA,Gleason, Clinical Stage) remain the same then we can say that the
> odds that my cancer is "organ confined" is about 90%-9 out of 10.
>
> Would appreciate any feedback regarding my analysis of how I understand
> the Partin tables.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sy

In article <fk113t0l14@news3.newsguy . com >, jloomis <jloomis@ocean . net >
wrote:

Hi,

I was with you until the sentence that read "you do have good
numbers for aggressive treatment at this stage".

It's interesting how people see the same numbers differently. My
personal interpretation of my numbers is that "I have good numbers for
my current choice which is "active surveillance".

Thanks,

Sy










> Hello Sy,
> Organ confined prostate cancer is cancer that has not spread. Like a
> forest fire, if we can catch the start of the blaze, and "confine" that, we
> have saved the forest. And like a forest fire if a spark gets out, and wind
> catches it, we have more trouble and or metastisis...spread.
> No man really wishes for either.....confined or not.
> Not being a Dr. but knowing the rudiments of this ordeal, the Partin
> Tables give clues as to the type and spread of cancer. the slides the Dr.s
> have can give them a clue to the aggressive nature of the type of cancer.
> Having organ confined cancer does not guarantee that we will die of
> another ailment and not prostate cancer. That is why we have these tests to
> determine the type and spread of cancer so that like the forest fire, it can
> be treated before it causes further harm.
>
> Sorry for the simplistic way of stating this ordeal, and you do have good
> numbers for aggressive treatment at this stage.
> Wish you the best...
> jloomis prostate cancer @ 49 (1999) RP Nov 1999. Still kicking........
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Sy" <stuttgart6@lycos . com > wrote in message
> news:151220070649554989%stuttgart6@lycos . com ...
> >
> > I am beginning to understand the Partin Tables but have some questions:
> >
> > My "numbers" for purposes of the Partin Tables are:
> >
> > PSA-3.14
> > Gleason-6
> > Clinical Stage-T1c
> >
> > Based upon my numbers, the Partin tables show:
> >
> >
> > Organ confined -88 (86-90)
> > Extraprostatic extension-11 (10-13)
> > Seminal vesicle- 1 (0-1)
> > Lymph node -0 (0-0)
> >
> > As I understand it, that means that the probabliity that the cancer is
> > "organ confined" is %88, "extraprostatic" %11 and so forth. Obviously
> > the further the cancer has spread from the prostate itself, the more
> > "serious" the cancer probably is.
> >
> > So in trying to understand these numbers, if we have prostate cancer
> > our wish would be that it be "organ confined" because we all know that
> > very many men die of other causes while having "organ confined"
> > prostate cancer. In my case it appears that as long as all my numbers
> > (PSA,Gleason, Clinical Stage) remain the same then we can say that the
> > odds that my cancer is "organ confined" is about 90%-9 out of 10.
> >
> > Would appreciate any feedback regarding my analysis of how I understand
> > the Partin tables.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Sy
>
>

Active surveillance is waiting until active action. This would be like a
fireman, standing back with the hose, and waiting to see which way the fire
goes. You can do this, and wait. There is not problem to this kind of
method. On the other hand, many firefighters would choose to put out the
fire before its inevitable spread. Your decision.
jloomis
"Sy" <stuttgart6@lycos . com > wrote in message
news:151220071735094849%stuttgart6@lycos . com ...
> In article <fk113t0l14@news3.newsguy . com >, jloomis <jloomis@ocean . net >
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I was with you until the sentence that read "you do have good
> numbers for aggressive treatment at this stage".
>
> It's interesting how people see the same numbers differently. My
> personal interpretation of my numbers is that "I have good numbers for
> my current choice which is "active surveillance".
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Hello Sy,
>> Organ confined prostate cancer is cancer that has not spread. Like a
>> forest fire, if we can catch the start of the blaze, and "confine" that,
>> we
>> have saved the forest. And like a forest fire if a spark gets out, and
>> wind
>> catches it, we have more trouble and or metastisis...spread.
>> No man really wishes for either.....confined or not.
>> Not being a Dr. but knowing the rudiments of this ordeal, the Partin
>> Tables give clues as to the type and spread of cancer. the slides the
>> Dr.s
>> have can give them a clue to the aggressive nature of the type of cancer.
>> Having organ confined cancer does not guarantee that we will die of
>> another ailment and not prostate cancer. That is why we have these tests
>> to
>> determine the type and spread of cancer so that like the forest fire, it
>> can
>> be treated before it causes further harm.
>>
>> Sorry for the simplistic way of stating this ordeal, and you do have good
>> numbers for aggressive treatment at this stage.
>> Wish you the best...
>> jloomis prostate cancer @ 49 (1999) RP Nov 1999. Still kicking........
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Sy" <stuttgart6@lycos . com > wrote in message
>> news:151220070649554989%stuttgart6@lycos . com ...
>> >
>> > I am beginning to understand the Partin Tables but have some questions:
>> >
>> > My "numbers" for purposes of the Partin Tables are:
>> >
>> > PSA-3.14
>> > Gleason-6
>> > Clinical Stage-T1c
>> >
>> > Based upon my numbers, the Partin tables show:
>> >
>> >
>> > Organ confined -88 (86-90)
>> > Extraprostatic extension-11 (10-13)
>> > Seminal vesicle- 1 (0-1)
>> > Lymph node -0 (0-0)
>> >
>> > As I understand it, that means that the probabliity that the cancer is
>> > "organ confined" is %88, "extraprostatic" %11 and so forth. Obviously
>> > the further the cancer has spread from the prostate itself, the more
>> > "serious" the cancer probably is.
>> >
>> > So in trying to understand these numbers, if we have prostate cancer
>> > our wish would be that it be "organ confined" because we all know that
>> > very many men die of other causes while having "organ confined"
>> > prostate cancer. In my case it appears that as long as all my numbers
>> > (PSA,Gleason, Clinical Stage) remain the same then we can say that the
>> > odds that my cancer is "organ confined" is about 90%-9 out of 10.
>> >
>> > Would appreciate any feedback regarding my analysis of how I understand
>> > the Partin tables.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Sy
>>
>>

jloomis wrote:
> Active surveillance is waiting until active action. This would be like a
> fireman, standing back with the hose, and waiting to see which way the fire
> goes. You can do this, and wait. There is not problem to this kind of
> method. On the other hand, many firefighters would choose to put out the
> fire before its inevitable spread.

Many firefighters choose to light a few candles these days and leave it
on, as long as the fire doesn't spread; spreading is not "inevitable".
AS is not "waiting until active action". It is "waiting to see if action
is required".

Should one wait for capsular penetration?
There is not much sense in that.
jloomis
"safire" <safire@telenet . com > wrote in message news:fk2nmm$kqs$1@aioe.org...
> jloomis wrote:
>> Active surveillance is waiting until active action. This would be like a
>> fireman, standing back with the hose, and waiting to see which way the
>> fire goes. You can do this, and wait. There is not problem to this kind
>> of method. On the other hand, many firefighters would choose to put out
>> the fire before its inevitable spread.
>
> Many firefighters choose to light a few candles these days and leave it
> on, as long as the fire doesn't spread; spreading is not "inevitable". AS
> is not "waiting until active action". It is "waiting to see if action is
> required".

Sy wrote:
> In article <fk113t0l14@news3.newsguy . com >, jloomis <jloomis@ocean . net >
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I was with you until the sentence that read "you do have good
> numbers for aggressive treatment at this stage".
>
> It's interesting how people see the same numbers differently. My
> personal interpretation of my numbers is that "I have good numbers for
> my current choice which is "active surveillance".
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Hello Sy,
>> Organ confined prostate cancer is cancer that has not spread. Like a
>> forest fire, if we can catch the start of the blaze, and "confine" that, we
>> have saved the forest. And like a forest fire if a spark gets out, and wind
>> catches it, we have more trouble and or metastisis...spread.
>> No man really wishes for either.....confined or not.
>> Not being a Dr. but knowing the rudiments of this ordeal, the Partin
>> Tables give clues as to the type and spread of cancer. the slides the Dr.s
>> have can give them a clue to the aggressive nature of the type of cancer.
>> Having organ confined cancer does not guarantee that we will die of
>> another ailment and not prostate cancer. That is why we have these tests to
>> determine the type and spread of cancer so that like the forest fire, it can
>> be treated before it causes further harm.
>>
>> Sorry for the simplistic way of stating this ordeal, and you do have good
>> numbers for aggressive treatment at this stage.
>> Wish you the best...
>> jloomis prostate cancer @ 49 (1999) RP Nov 1999. Still kicking........
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Sy" <stuttgart6@lycos . com > wrote in message
>> news:151220070649554989%stuttgart6@lycos . com ...
>>> I am beginning to understand the Partin Tables but have some questions:
>>>
>>> My "numbers" for purposes of the Partin Tables are:
>>>
>>> PSA-3.14
>>> Gleason-6
>>> Clinical Stage-T1c
>>>
>>> Based upon my numbers, the Partin tables show:
>>>
>>>
>>> Organ confined -88 (86-90)
>>> Extraprostatic extension-11 (10-13)
>>> Seminal vesicle- 1 (0-1)
>>> Lymph node -0 (0-0)
>>>
>>> As I understand it, that means that the probabliity that the cancer is
>>> "organ confined" is %88, "extraprostatic" %11 and so forth. Obviously
>>> the further the cancer has spread from the prostate itself, the more
>>> "serious" the cancer probably is.
>>>
>>> So in trying to understand these numbers, if we have prostate cancer
>>> our wish would be that it be "organ confined" because we all know that
>>> very many men die of other causes while having "organ confined"
>>> prostate cancer. In my case it appears that as long as all my numbers
>>> (PSA,Gleason, Clinical Stage) remain the same then we can say that the
>>> odds that my cancer is "organ confined" is about 90%-9 out of 10.
>>>
>>> Would appreciate any feedback regarding my analysis of how I understand
>>> the Partin tables.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Sy
>>

Let me say again. You can't draw such a conclusion on the basis of the
Partin Tables. You would have to have a reliably researched model
which would give you the likelihood of metastasis some time in the
future if you didn't get treatment now and relied on active surveillance
instead. the partin tables only tell you the probabilities about what
the pathologist will find if you ahve a radical prostatectomy.

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 17:35:09 -0500, Sy <stuttgart6@lycos . com > wrote:

>It's interesting how people see the same numbers differently. My
>personal interpretation of my numbers is that "I have good numbers for
>my current choice which is "active surveillance".

No surprise that interpretations differ when we're lost in such
inexact data, hopelessy inadequate science, irrational
optimism/pessimism and the tantalising 'cure'/SE seesaw.

You say you have good numbers for active surveillance. Partin reports
on a snapshot. What about your doubling time? Since you first posted
here, enough time will have elapsed to enable you to test your 22month
PSA-DT, and of course as an *active* surveillant you'll have had a new
reading. How's that going?

Roast Beef,

I will be getting my PSA tested in early January. Will let you know the
results.

Thanks for asking.

Sy





In article <flkcm3p9g27rc2v173p617j5nouqss0lug@4ax . com >, rosbif wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 17:35:09 -0500, Sy <stuttgart6@lycos . com > wrote:
>
> >It's interesting how people see the same numbers differently. My
> >personal interpretation of my numbers is that "I have good numbers for
> >my current choice which is "active surveillance".
>
> No surprise that interpretations differ when we're lost in such
> inexact data, hopelessy inadequate science, irrational
> optimism/pessimism and the tantalising 'cure'/SE seesaw.
>
> You say you have good numbers for active surveillance. Partin reports
> on a snapshot. What about your doubling time? Since you first posted
> here, enough time will have elapsed to enable you to test your 22month
> PSA-DT, and of course as an *active* surveillant you'll have had a new
> reading. How's that going?
>
>

Sy wrote:
> I am beginning to understand the Partin Tables but have some questions:
>
> My "numbers" for purposes of the Partin Tables are:
>
> PSA-3.14
> Gleason-6
> Clinical Stage-T1c
>
> Based upon my numbers, the Partin tables show:
>
>
> Organ confined -88 (86-90)
> Extraprostatic extension-11 (10-13)
> Seminal vesicle- 1 (0-1)
> Lymph node -0 (0-0)
>
> As I understand it, that means that the probabliity that the cancer is
> "organ confined" is %88, "extraprostatic" %11 and so forth. Obviously
> the further the cancer has spread from the prostate itself, the more
> "serious" the cancer probably is.
>
> So in trying to understand these numbers, if we have prostate cancer
> our wish would be that it be "organ confined" because we all know that
> very many men die of other causes while having "organ confined"
> prostate cancer. In my case it appears that as long as all my numbers
> (PSA,Gleason, Clinical Stage) remain the same then we can say that the
> odds that my cancer is "organ confined" is about 90%-9 out of 10.
>
> Would appreciate any feedback regarding my analysis of how I understand
> the Partin tables.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sy

You have to understand how the Partin tables wer constructed. They took
a large number of men whose diagnoses before surgery was known. They
then analyzed their post surgical pathology reports. So for men whose
cancer was diagnosed as T1c and had a PSA before surgery in a certain
range (indicated in the tables) that contained yours (3.4) and for whom
the Gleason score was 6=3+3, the percentage of cases in which the
cancer was found to be organ confined was 88 percent, the percentage in
which there was extraprostatic extension, but no cancer in the seminal
vesicales was 11 percent, the percentage in which there was cancer in
the seminal vesicles was 1 percent, and there were no cases observed
with cancer in the lymph nodes.

But what you have to keep in mind that the pathologist when examining
your prostate after surgery can only report what he sees. For example,
some cancer could have escaped the prostate, be somewhere in the sample
and missed by the pathologist or some cancer might have escaped outside
the sample examined by the pathologist. Some, but not all of these
cancers will recur. In addition, not all cancers which the apthologist
finds have escaped the prostate will recur after treatment. So the
Partin tables, while helpful, can't be used to determine the risk of
metastasis at a later date. The only way to do that is to follow a
large number of men for years and see how often the cancer recurs. Note
that in such cases, the cancer didn't pop up out of nowhere. It had
almost certainly already escaped the prostate at the time of surgery
although not found by the pathologist.

Various researchers have done that work and constructed models from
which they can, with some degree of confidence, predict the likelihood
of recurrence within specified time periods. One place you can find a
reliable calculator of this sort is at the Sloan Kettering website. It
will give you the likelihood of recurrence based on pre-surgical
diagnosis and also the risk based on the results following surgery.

In a case like yours, I think you will find that the likelihood of
non-recurrence within ten years is something like 97 percent.

Leonard,

Thanks for the clarification.

So if I understand correctly, given my numbers and assuming I were to
get a RP , my chance of recurrence would be about 3%. Is that correct?

Also, when one says "recurrence" where is the locus? I guess it could
be prostate,lymph or bone or all?

Sy







In article <j6qdnSEFkbf2QPjanZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@comcast . com >, Leonard
Evens <len@math.northwestern.edu> wrote:

> Sy wrote:
> > I am beginning to understand the Partin Tables but have some questions:
> >
> > My "numbers" for purposes of the Partin Tables are:
> >
> > PSA-3.14
> > Gleason-6
> > Clinical Stage-T1c
> >
> > Based upon my numbers, the Partin tables show:
> >
> >
> > Organ confined -88 (86-90)
> > Extraprostatic extension-11 (10-13)
> > Seminal vesicle- 1 (0-1)
> > Lymph node -0 (0-0)
> >
> > As I understand it, that means that the probabliity that the cancer is
> > "organ confined" is %88, "extraprostatic" %11 and so forth. Obviously
> > the further the cancer has spread from the prostate itself, the more
> > "serious" the cancer probably is.
> >
> > So in trying to understand these numbers, if we have prostate cancer
> > our wish would be that it be "organ confined" because we all know that
> > very many men die of other causes while having "organ confined"
> > prostate cancer. In my case it appears that as long as all my numbers
> > (PSA,Gleason, Clinical Stage) remain the same then we can say that the
> > odds that my cancer is "organ confined" is about 90%-9 out of 10.
> >
> > Would appreciate any feedback regarding my analysis of how I understand
> > the Partin tables.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Sy
>
> You have to understand how the Partin tables wer constructed. They took
> a large number of men whose diagnoses before surgery was known. They
> then analyzed their post surgical pathology reports. So for men whose
> cancer was diagnosed as T1c and had a PSA before surgery in a certain
> range (indicated in the tables) that contained yours (3.4) and for whom
> the Gleason score was 6=3+3, the percentage of cases in which the
> cancer was found to be organ confined was 88 percent, the percentage in
> which there was extraprostatic extension, but no cancer in the seminal
> vesicales was 11 percent, the percentage in which there was cancer in
> the seminal vesicles was 1 percent, and there were no cases observed
> with cancer in the lymph nodes.
>
> But what you have to keep in mind that the pathologist when examining
> your prostate after surgery can only report what he sees. For example,
> some cancer could have escaped the prostate, be somewhere in the sample
> and missed by the pathologist or some cancer might have escaped outside
> the sample examined by the pathologist. Some, but not all of these
> cancers will recur. In addition, not all cancers which the apthologist
> finds have escaped the prostate will recur after treatment. So the
> Partin tables, while helpful, can't be used to determine the risk of
> metastasis at a later date. The only way to do that is to follow a
> large number of men for years and see how often the cancer recurs. Note
> that in such cases, the cancer didn't pop up out of nowhere. It had
> almost certainly already escaped the prostate at the time of surgery
> although not found by the pathologist.
>
> Various researchers have done that work and constructed models from
> which they can, with some degree of confidence, predict the likelihood
> of recurrence within specified time periods. One place you can find a
> reliable calculator of this sort is at the Sloan Kettering website. It
> will give you the likelihood of recurrence based on pre-surgical
> diagnosis and also the risk based on the results following surgery.
>
> In a case like yours, I think you will find that the likelihood of
> non-recurrence within ten years is something like 97 percent.

Sy wrote:
> Leonard,
>
> Thanks for the clarification.
>
> So if I understand correctly, given my numbers and assuming I were to
> get a RP , my chance of recurrence would be about 3%. Is that correct?
>

>
> Sy
>
>
No Sy, for that determination you need the data obtained at the time of
the RP (the Gleason score may very well differ) and use the Han tables,
that were developed for that purpose.

On Dec 18, 10:30 am, safire <saf...@telenet . com > wrote:
> No Sy, for that determination you need the data obtained at the time of
> the RP (the Gleason score may very well differ) and use the Han tables,
> that were developed for that purpose.


Safire...If by the "Han tables" you are referring to the paper by M.
Han, A. W. Partin, M. Zahurak, S. Piantadosi, J. Epstein and P. C.
Walsh; J. Urol., 169, 517-523, 2003 (the paper can be found at
* w w w .prostate-help.org/download/jhnomo.pdf
this paper is often referred to as the "Hopkins nomograms"), then
Tables 2-4 do allow post-RP biochemical recurrence-free predictions
based on pre-operative characteristics (TNM staging, pre-op PSA,
biopsy GS); Tables 5-6 allow similar predictions based on post-
operative characteristics (organ confinement status, pre-op PSA,
pathological GS).

Based on Sy's pre-op PSA, TNM staging and biopsy GS, and using Table 2
in the nomogram, Sy's expected biochemical recurrence-free probability
at 10 years post-RP would be 97% (range: 91-99%); conversely, as Sy
states it, his probability of biochemical recurrence would be "about
3%."...Best wishes and good health, ron

On Dec 15, 6:49 am, Sy <stuttga...@lycos . com > wrote:
> I am beginning to understand the Partin Tables but have some questions:
>
> My "numbers" for purposes of the Partin Tables are:
>
> PSA-3.14
> Gleason-6
> Clinical Stage-T1c
>
> Based upon my numbers, the Partin tables show:
>
> Organ confined -88 (86-90)
> Extraprostatic extension-11 (10-13)
> Seminal vesicle- 1 (0-1)
> Lymph node -0 (0-0)
>
> As I understand it, that means that the probabliity that the cancer is
> "organ confined" is %88, "extraprostatic" %11 and so forth. Obviously
> the further the cancer has spread from the prostate itself, the more
> "serious" the cancer probably is.
>
> So in trying to understand these numbers, if we have prostate cancer
> our wish would be that it be "organ confined" because we all know that
> very many men die of other causes while having "organ confined"
> prostate cancer. In my case it appears that as long as all my numbers
> (PSA,Gleason, Clinical Stage) remain the same then we can say that the
> odds that my cancer is "organ confined" is about 90%-9 out of 10.
>
> Would appreciate any feedback regarding my analysis of how I understand
> the Partin tables.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sy

Dear Sy,

Don't have time to read the entire thread. However, you should pull
up my post here, "5 out of 6 Men May Not Need Treatment". It
discusses Gleason "grade inflation," which you need to factor in when
looking at the Partin Tables. In this case, the the trend is your
friend:

1) A subset of people, mostly those currently diagnosed with G6 or
(to a lesser extent) G7-grade tumors, will have a more optimistic
long-
term prognosis when using older nomograms, such as the Partin Tables

Good luck,

Leah