Partin Tables (Prostate Cancer)

Partin Prediction Model

Pathological Stage Estimator

Serum PSA (ng/mL)

Clinical Stage

Gleason Score (Grade Group)

Stage Logic

Enter PSA, Stage, and Gleason to resolve the pathological probability matrix.

Guidelines & Evidence

Verified

Last Review: 2026-07-17

When to Use

What are the Partin Tables?

The Partin tables (also known as the Partin nomogram) are a preoperative predictive tool for men with clinically localized prostate cancer who are considering radical prostatectomy. Using three readily available clinical variables—serum PSA level, biopsy Gleason score (or Grade Group), and clinical T stage—the tables estimate the probability of four pathological outcomes at the time of surgery: (1) organ-confined disease (OC, favorable), (2) extraprostatic extension (EPE, tumor extends beyond prostate capsule), (3) seminal vesicle invasion (SVI, poor prognosis), and (4) lymph node involvement (LNI, requires systemic therapy or extended lymph node dissection). The tables help clinicians and patients make informed decisions about treatment options (active surveillance vs surgery vs radiation), surgical planning (nerve-sparing vs wide excision), and the need for extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND).

Primary Clinical Indications

Pretreatment counseling – Provides quantitative estimates of pathological stage probabilities to guide shared decision-making between surgery, radiation, and active surveillance

Surgical planning – High probability of extraprostatic extension (EPE) on one side may lead surgeon to avoid nerve-sparing techniques on that side to ensure negative margins

Lymph node dissection decisions – Risk of lymph node involvement (LNI) >5% (some guidelines use >7-10%) is an indication for extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) at time of radical prostatectomy

Active surveillance selection – Patients with high probability of organ-confined disease (>90%) and low-grade features (Grade Group 1, PSA <10, cT1c) are ideal candidates for active surveillance

Adjuvant therapy planning – High probability of seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) or lymph node involvement (LNI) may prompt discussion of adjuvant radiation or systemic therapy (hormonal therapy) after surgery

Clinical trial eligibility – Some trials use Partin table predictions for inclusion criteria or stratification

Comparison with MRI – Partin table predictions can be integrated with multiparametric MRI (PI-RADS) and MRI-targeted biopsy results for improved accuracy

Contraindications / Limitations

Not applicable to patients who received neoadjuvant therapy – Hormonal therapy or radiation prior to surgery alters pathological stage; Partin tables were derived from untreated patients undergoing immediate radical prostatectomy

Not applicable to transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) incidental diagnoses – TURP specimens may have different Gleason grading and tumor volume relationships; use with caution

Does not include modern risk factors – Does not incorporate percentage of positive biopsy cores, MRI findings (PI-RADS), PSA density, or genomic classifiers (Decipher, Prolaris, Oncotype DX). These may improve accuracy beyond Partin tables

Underestimates risk in some populations – Developed at a single tertiary referral center (Johns Hopkins) with predominantly white, high-volume surgeon patients. May not fully generalize to community settings, African American men, or other ethnic groups

Based on older biopsy schemes – The 2013 update used 10-12 core systematic biopsy; many practices now use MRI-targeted fusion biopsy, which may alter Gleason grade distribution and cancer volume

Does not predict biochemical recurrence (BCR) – Partin tables predict pathological stage, not long-term oncologic outcomes (BCR, metastasis, cancer-specific survival). Other nomograms (CAPRA, Kattan, MSKCC) are better for recurrence prediction

Requires accurate clinical staging – Clinical T stage (DRE) is subjective and operator-dependent. cT2a vs cT2b vs cT2c has high inter-observer variability. MRI may provide more accurate staging (T2 vs T3a vs T3b)

Not validated for very high-risk patients – Patients with PSA >20, Gleason 9-10, or cT3-T4 are often excluded or have limited numbers; these patients are best managed with multi-modal therapy regardless of Partin predictions

Partin Table Variables and Categories (2013 Update)

Variable	Categories	Notes	Changes from Prior Versions
PSA (ng/mL)	0-2.5, 2.6-4.0, 4.1-6.0, 6.1-10.0, >10.0	PSA value at diagnosis (not after biopsy; biopsy can transiently elevate PSA but usually not clinically significant)	PSA categories refined (previously: 0-4, 4.1-10, >10). Lower threshold (0-2.5) reflects stage migration toward lower PSA cancers.
Biopsy Gleason Score	≤6 (Grade Group 1), 3+4=7 (Grade Group 2), 4+3=7 (Grade Group 3), 8 (Grade Group 4), 9-10 (Grade Group 5)	Gleason score of the dominant/most aggressive core. 3+4=7 and 4+3=7 are separate categories due to different prognoses. Tertiary Gleason pattern 5 (e.g., 3+4=7 with tertiary 5) is rare; these are often reclassified as Gleason 8.	Gleason 7 split into 3+4 and 4+3 (important prognostic distinction). Gleason 6 is now ≤6 (previously 2-6, but Gleason 1-2 are no longer diagnosed).
Clinical T Stage	T1c (non-palpable, diagnosed by needle biopsy), T2a (palpable, <1/2 of one lobe), T2b (palpable, >1/2 of one lobe but not both lobes), T2c (palpable, both lobes), T3a (extraprostatic extension on DRE), T3b (seminal vesicle invasion on DRE)	Clinical staging by digital rectal exam (DRE). T1a/b (TURP incidental) are rare and not included. T3 disease is uncommon in the Partin cohort (most are T1c-2c).	T3a and T3b categories added (previously lumped as T3). T1c became dominant category (most prostate cancers are now non-palpable due to PSA screening).

Comparison with Other Prostate Cancer Risk Calculators

Calculator	Inputs	Outputs	Strengths	Limitations
Partin Tables (2013)	PSA, Gleason, clinical T stage	Probability of OC, EPE, SVI, LNI at prostatectomy	Simple, widely available, specific to pathological staging at surgery	Does not predict BCR; does not include biopsy core percentage, MRI; last updated 2013
CAPRA Score (Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment)	Age, PSA, Gleason, clinical T stage, % positive cores	10-year biochemical recurrence (BCR) risk, metastasis, prostate cancer-specific mortality	Validated for BCR, easy to calculate (0-10 score), includes % positive cores	Does not predict pathological stage; developed from community-based cohort
Kattan Nomogram (MSKCC)	PSA, Gleason, clinical T stage, biopsy core number, % positive cores, and more	Probability of BCR at 2, 5, 10 years post-surgery or radiation	Highly accurate, customizable (pre-surgery or post-surgery), includes core data	More complex (requires nomogram or online calculator), not updated as frequently
Prostate Biopsy Risk Calculator (PBCG)	Age, race, PSA, DRE, prior biopsy, family history	Probability of high-grade cancer (Gleason ≥7) on biopsy	Pre-biopsy decision tool, validated in multi-ethnic cohort (PBCG)	Does not predict pathological stage or post-treatment outcomes
Decipher Genomic Classifier	Tumor RNA expression (from biopsy or prostatectomy)	10-year metastasis risk, BCR	Adds genomic information beyond clinical variables; guides adjuvant therapy	Expensive ($4,000-5,000), not universally available, requires adequate tumor tissue
ProtecT Trial Risk Groups	PSA, Gleason, clinical T stage	Disease-specific mortality, metastasis, progression	Randomized trial data (active surveillance vs surgery vs radiation)	Limited to low-intermediate risk men; not a continuous risk model

How it Works

Probability of Organ-Confined Disease (OC) – 2013 Partin Tables

PSA (ng/mL)	Gleason ≤6 (GG1)	Gleason 3+4=7 (GG2)	Gleason 4+3=7 (GG3)	Gleason 8 (GG4)	Gleason 9-10 (GG5)	Clinical Stage Assumption
0-2.5	94% (T1c) / 90% (T2a) / 86% (T2b) / 81% (T2c)	83% (T1c) / 78% (T2a) / 73% (T2b) / 66% (T2c)	73% (T1c) / 68% (T2a) / 62% (T2b) / 55% (T2c)	50% (T1c) / 44% (T2a) / 38% (T2b) / 32% (T2c)	30% (T1c) / 25% (T2a) / 20% (T2b) / 16% (T2c)	Estimates shown for T1c (non-palpable); T2a (palpable, <1/2 lobe); T2b (>1/2 lobe, one lobe); T2c (both lobes) — lower probabilities as T stage increases
2.6-4.0	91% (T1c) / 86% (T2a) / 81% (T2b) / 75% (T2c)	79% (T1c) / 73% (T2a) / 67% (T2b) / 60% (T2c)	68% (T1c) / 62% (T2a) / 55% (T2b) / 48% (T2c)	45% (T1c) / 39% (T2a) / 33% (T2b) / 27% (T2c)	25% (T1c) / 20% (T2a) / 16% (T2b) / 12% (T2c)	Higher PSA → lower probability of OC for same Gleason/T stage
4.1-6.0	88% (T1c) / 82% (T2a) / 76% (T2b) / 69% (T2c)	75% (T1c) / 68% (T2a) / 61% (T2b) / 53% (T2c)	63% (T1c) / 56% (T2a) / 49% (T2b) / 41% (T2c)	40% (T1c) / 34% (T2a) / 28% (T2b) / 22% (T2c)	20% (T1c) / 16% (T2a) / 12% (T2b) / 9% (T2c)	Typical low-risk prostate cancer range
6.1-10.0	82% (T1c) / 75% (T2a) / 67% (T2b) / 59% (T2c)	67% (T1c) / 59% (T2a) / 51% (T2b) / 43% (T2c)	54% (T1c) / 46% (T2a) / 39% (T2b) / 32% (T2c)	32% (T1c) / 26% (T2a) / 20% (T2b) / 15% (T2c)	15% (T1c) / 11% (T2a) / 8% (T2b) / 6% (T2c)	Intermediate-risk range
>10.0	70% (T1c) / 62% (T2a) / 53% (T2b) / 44% (T2c)	53% (T1c) / 45% (T2a) / 37% (T2b) / 30% (T2c)	40% (T1c) / 33% (T2a) / 26% (T2b) / 20% (T2c)	21% (T1c) / 16% (T2a) / 12% (T2b) / 8% (T2c)	10% (T1c) / 7% (T2a) / 5% (T2b) / 3% (T2c)	High-risk range (PSA >10)

Probability of Extraprostatic Extension (EPE) – 2013 Partin Tables (Selected Values)

PSA (ng/mL)	Gleason ≤6	Gleason 3+4=7	Gleason 4+3=7	Gleason 8	Gleason 9-10	Key Clinical Implication
0-2.5 (T1c)	5%	14%	23%	40%	55%	EPE >25% may influence nerve-sparing decisions
4.1-6.0 (T1c)	10%	22%	33%	50%	65%	For Gleason 6, EPE risk 10% (low) → may preserve nerves bilaterally
6.1-10.0 (T1c)	15%	28%	40%	58%	70%	Gleason 7 (3+4) EPE 28% → consider unilateral nerve sparing
>10.0 (T1c)	25%	38%	50%	65%	75%	Gleason 8-10: high EPE risk → likely no nerve sparing
T2c (both lobes palpable)	Higher by ~10% across all categories	Higher by ~10%	Higher by ~10%	Higher by ~10%	Higher by ~10%	Bilateral palpable disease increases EPE risk

Probability of Seminal Vesicle Invasion (SVI) – 2013 Partin Tables (Selected Values)

PSA (ng/mL)	Gleason ≤6	Gleason 3+4=7	Gleason 4+3=7	Gleason 8	Gleason 9-10	Clinical Implication
0-2.5 (T1c)	<1%	2%	4%	8%	15%	SVI risk low for Gleason ≤6, even with PSA <10
4.1-6.0 (T1c)	1%	4%	7%	12%	20%	SVI >10% suggests high risk; consider adjuvant radiation post-op
6.1-10.0 (T1c)	2%	6%	10%	18%	25%	For Gleason 4+3=7, SVI 10% (significant risk)
>10.0 (T1c)	5%	10%	15%	25%	35%	High PSA >10 + Gleason ≥7 → SVI >10%
T2c (both lobes)	Additional 2-5%	Additional 5-10%	Additional 5-10%	Additional 5-10%	Additional 5-10%	Bilateral palpable disease increases SVI risk

Probability of Lymph Node Involvement (LNI) – 2013 Partin Tables (Selected Values)

PSA (ng/mL)	Gleason ≤6	Gleason 3+4=7	Gleason 4+3=7	Gleason 8	Gleason 9-10	Guideline for ePLND
0-2.5 (T1c)	<1%	1%	2%	4%	8%	LNI <5% → ePLND not indicated (EAU/NCCN: consider if >5-7%)
4.1-6.0 (T1c)	1%	2%	3%	6%	10%	For Gleason 8, LNI 6% → some guidelines suggest ePLND
6.1-10.0 (T1c)	2%	3%	5%	8%	15%	LNI >5% threshold triggers ePLND in many guidelines
>10.0 (T1c)	4%	6%	10%	15%	25%	LNI >10% strongly indicates ePLND and possibly adjuvant therapy
T2c (both lobes)	Additional 1-2%	Additional 2-4%	Additional 2-4%	Additional 2-4%	Additional 3-5%	Clinical T2c increases LNI risk modestly

Clinical Pearls

Critical Pearl #1: Nerve-Sparing Surgery Decisions Based on EPE Probability

One of the most practical uses of the Partin tables is guiding the decision to perform nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. The cavernous nerves responsible for erectile function run along the posterolateral aspect of the prostate. If the tumor has a high probability of extraprostatic extension (EPE) in a specific location, wide excision (non-nerve-sparing) is necessary to achieve negative surgical margins. General guidelines: - EPE risk <10-15%: Bilateral nerve-sparing likely safe (negative margins achievable). - EPE risk 15-25%: Consider unilateral nerve-sparing on the side of the lower risk; non-nerve-sparing on the contralateral side if that side has higher risk (based on biopsy laterality). - EPE risk >25%: Avoid nerve sparing on that side (wide excision). Bilateral EPE risk >25% → likely non-nerve-sparing surgery (bilateral wide excision). Example: Patient with PSA 6.0, Gleason 3+4=7, cT1c. Partin table EPE probability = 22% (borderline). If biopsy shows cancer only on left side, EPE risk on left may be ~22% (consider non-nerve-sparing on left), while right side risk is lower (perhaps 10-15%, safe for nerve sparing). This is an approximation; intraoperative findings (visual inspection, frozen section) also guide decisions. Limitation: Partin tables do not provide laterality-specific risk. Use clinical judgment, MRI (if available), and biopsy core location to assign risk to each side.

Critical Pearl #2: Extended Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection (ePLND) Based on LNI Probability

The Partin table probability of lymph node involvement (LNI) is a key factor in deciding whether to perform extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) at the time of radical prostatectomy. Guidelines (EAU 2023, NCCN 2024): - LNI risk <5%: ePLND not indicated (low yield, risk of complications: lymphocele, obturator nerve injury, vascular injury). - LNI risk 5-7%: Consider ePLND based on patient factors (age, comorbidities, surgical approach). Some guidelines use 5% threshold, others 7%. - LNI risk >7%: ePLND indicated (high risk of positive nodes). Note: The Partin table may underestimate LNI risk in some patients (especially those with high percentage of positive cores, high PSA density). Other nomograms (MSKCC, Briganti 2012, or Briganti 2017 MRI-based) may be more accurate for LNI prediction. The Briganti nomogram includes percentage of positive cores and MRI findings. If available, use a dedicated LNI nomogram rather than Partin tables for ePLND decisions. Example: Patient with PSA 8.0, Gleason 4+3=7, cT2a. Partin LNI probability = 5% (borderline). Percentage of positive cores = 12/12 (100% positive). The Briganti 2012 nomogram would give a higher LNI probability (likely >15%) due to extensive core positivity. ePLND would be indicated regardless of Partin estimate.

Critical Pearl #3: Partin Tables Do Not Predict Biochemical Recurrence (BCR)

The Partin tables predict pathological stage at surgery, not long-term oncologic outcomes. Two patients with the same Partin probabilities may have very different risks of biochemical recurrence (BCR) after surgery. Example: Patient A: PSA 5.0, Gleason 3+4=7, cT1c → Partin probability of OC = 75%, EPE = 22%, SVI = 4%, LNI = 2%. Patient B (same Partin probabilities) but patient B has 10/12 positive cores (83% positive) and a PI-RADS 5 lesion on MRI, while patient A has 2/12 positive cores (17%). Patient B's BCR risk is much higher despite identical Partin estimates. Action: Use Partin tables for what they were designed for: predicting pathological stage at prostatectomy. For BCR prediction, use CAPRA score, Kattan nomogram, or genomic classifiers (Decipher, Prolaris) if available. For active surveillance decisions, use risk calculators that incorporate percentage of positive cores and PSA density (e.g., Johns Hopkins active surveillance criteria, Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance [PRIAS] criteria).

Critical Pearl #4: The 2013 Partin Tables Are Becoming Outdated

The most recent Partin table update was published in 2013, using data from patients treated between 2006 and 2011. Since then, several important changes have occurred: 1. Widespread use of MRI-targeted biopsy (rather than systematic biopsy) – MRI-targeted biopsies may upgrade Gleason score compared to systematic biopsy (more accurate sampling of high-grade lesions), altering the distribution of Gleason scores in surgical cohorts. 2. Grade Group system (GGG) – The 2014 ISUP (International Society of Urological Pathology) modified Gleason grading, with Grade Groups 1-5. The 2013 Partin tables use traditional Gleason scores (≤6, 3+4=7, 4+3=7, 8, 9-10), which remain valid but may not fully align with modern grading. 3. Stage migration – More men are diagnosed with very low-risk prostate cancer (PSA 2-4, Gleason 6, cT1c) due to continued PSA screening (though screening rates have declined). The Partin tables may overestimate pathological stage in this group (since they were derived from older cohorts with higher PSA levels). 4. Active surveillance – Many men with low-risk features (cT1c, Gleason 6, PSA <10) are managed with active surveillance, not immediate surgery. The Partin tables are less relevant for these men. 5. Newer risk calculators – The MSKCC Prostate Cancer Nomogram (updated 2021), the UCLA CAPRA score (updated 2015), and the Briganti nomogram for LNI (updated 2017 with MRI) are more current and incorporate modern variables. Recommendation: Use the 2013 Partin tables as a general guide, but for precise risk stratification, consider using more contemporary nomograms that include percentage of positive cores, MRI findings, and genomic classifiers when available.

Common Pitfalls in Partin Table Use

Using Partin tables for patients who received neoadjuvant therapy – Hormonal therapy or radiation alters pathology; Partin tables are not valid.

Using Partin tables for patients with prior TURP – TURP specimens may not be representative; use with caution.

Applying Partin table probabilities without considering percentage of positive cores – Extensive core positivity (e.g., >50%) increases risk of EPE, SVI, LNI beyond Partin estimates.

Ignoring MRI findings – Suspicious MRI (PI-RADS 4-5) with extracapsular extension (ECE) on imaging increases EPE risk beyond Partin tables.

Using Partin tables to decide against surgery in high-risk patients – Even with high probability of EPE or SVI, patients may still benefit from surgery (as part of multi-modal therapy). Partin tables should not be used alone to deny surgery.

Assuming Partin tables are accurate for very high-risk patients (PSA >20, Gleason 9-10, cT3) – Limited numbers in Partin cohort; these patients are best managed with multi-modal therapy (surgery + adjuvant radiation/hormonal therapy). Use clinical judgment.

Using Partin tables for African American men without adjustment – African American men may have higher rates of aggressive disease for the same PSA and Gleason; Partin tables may underestimate risk.

Interpolating between PSA categories – Use the exact PSA bin (e.g., 4.1-6.0 for PSA 5.2). Do not average between bins (non-linear relationship).

Using Partin tables when PSA is unreliable – PSA can be falsely elevated by prostatitis, recent biopsy (wait 6 weeks), or urinary retention. Do not use PSA drawn within 6 weeks of a prostate biopsy.

Failing to communicate uncertainty – Partin tables provide probabilities (e.g., 75% chance of OC), not certainty. Discuss with patients: "According to these estimates, there is a 75% chance the cancer is confined to the prostate and a 25% chance it has spread beyond the capsule."

Partin Tables vs MRI for Staging

Imaging/Modality	Strengths	Weaknesses	Integration with Partin
Partin Tables (clinical only)	No imaging required; uses widely available clinical data; 20+ years of validation	Does not incorporate tumor location, size, or morphologic features; no information on specific side of EPE	Provides baseline probability; can be adjusted based on MRI findings (e.g., if MRI shows ECE, increase EPE probability by 10-20%)
mpMRI (PI-RADS v2.1)	Visualizes index lesion; detects ECE (T3a), SVI (T3b), and lymphadenopathy; guides targeted biopsy; improves risk stratification	Requires specialized equipment and expertise; cost; contraindications (renal failure for gadolinium, claustrophobia); inter-reader variability; not all patients get MRI	MRI upstaging (MRI T3a or T3b) increases Partin probabilities; MRI downstaging (no ECE despite Partin high risk) may allow nerve sparing
PSMA PET/CT	Detects lymph node and distant metastases with high accuracy; may change management in high-risk patients (up to 30% have unsuspected metastases)	Expensive ($2,000-5,000); not routine for localized prostate cancer; requires radiotracer; false positives possible (inflammation)	For high-risk patients (PSA >20, Gleason 8-10, cT3), PSMA PET may detect metastases not predicted by Partin tables; if positive, may avoid unnecessary surgery
Combined (Partin + MRI)	More accurate than either alone; MRI ECE detection increases specificity; Partin provides baseline estimate	Requires both clinical data and imaging; MRI findings may not be integrated into a single nomogram (some exist: MSKCC, UCLA)	Research: Partin probabilities + MRI findings = improved AUC for EPE prediction (0.82 vs 0.74 for Partin alone)

Next Steps

Step-by-Step Clinical Action Based on Partin Probabilities

Clinical Scenarios and Partin Table Application

Scenario	PSA	Gleason	T Stage	Partin Probabilities (OC/EPE/SVI/LNI)	Management Decision
Low-risk, active surveillance candidate	3.5	≤6	T1c	OC 91%, EPE 8%, SVI 1%, LNI 1%	Active surveillance (AS). High probability of OC (91%) and very low risk of EPE (8%), SVI (1%), LNI (1%). Follow with PSA q6m, DRE q12m, MRI and repeat biopsy q2-3y.
Low-risk but anxious patient (same variables)	3.5	≤6	T1c	OC 91%, EPE 8%, SVI 1%, LNI 1%	Radical prostatectomy (RP) with bilateral nerve sparing (EPE risk low, safe to preserve nerves). ePLND not indicated (LNI 1% <5%). Good prognosis.
Intermediate-risk, candidate for RP with unilateral nerve sparing	7.5	3+4=7	T2a	OC 59%, EPE 28%, SVI 6%, LNI 3%	RP with unilateral nerve sparing on side of lower tumor volume (based on biopsy cores). ePLND not indicated (LNI 3% <5%). Consider MRI to assess EPE location.
Intermediate-high risk, ePLND indicated	12	4+3=7	T2b	OC 37%, EPE 40%, SVI 10%, LNI 6%	RP with bilateral non-nerve sparing (wide excision). ePLND indicated (LNI 6% >5%). Consider pre-op MRI for SVI detection. Adjuvant radiation + ADT if pathology shows EPE/SVI/positive nodes.
High-risk, likely multi-modal therapy	18	8 (GG4)	T2c	OC 15%, EPE 58%, SVI 18%, LNI 8%	RP (if feasible) + ePLND (LNI 8% >5%). Likely need adjuvant radiation and ADT (based on pathological stage). Alternative: primary radiation + ADT (24 months). Consider PSMA PET/CT for staging (rule out metastases).
Very high-risk, nonsurgical candidate	25	9-10 (GG5)	T3a (DRE)	OC 8%, EPE 70%, SVI 25%, LNI 15%	Primary radiation + ADT (24-36 months) + abiraterone (for very high-risk). RP may be considered in select high-volume centers but with high risk of positive margins and recurrence. ePLND if surgery pursued.
Post-RP pathology vs Partin prediction	N/A	N/A	N/A	Compare predicted vs actual: If actual stage worse than predicted, consider adjuvant therapy; if better, reassured.	Adjuvant radiation for EPE/SVI/positive margins; adjuvant ADT + radiation for positive nodes. Genomic testing (Decipher) may guide adjuvant therapy decisions.

Sample Clinical Documentation for Partin Tables

Example 1: Low-risk, active surveillance discussion: "Patient is a 60-year-old male with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. PSA 4.2, biopsy Gleason 3+3=6 (Grade Group 1) in 2/12 cores (17% positive), clinical stage T1c (non-palpable). Partin tables (2013): probability of organ-confined disease (OC) = 88%, extraprostatic extension (EPE) = 10%, seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) = 1%, lymph node involvement (LNI) = <1%. Discussed active surveillance as a guideline-concordant option (NCCN Category 1 for low-risk). Patient will undergo confirmatory MRI (PI-RADS) and repeat biopsy in 6-12 months. Partin probabilities supportive of surveillance. Plan: PSA q6 months, DRE q12 months, MRI with targeted biopsy q2 years. Alternatively, patient could choose radical prostatectomy with bilateral nerve sparing (low EPE risk) or radiation therapy, but surveillance recommended given low-risk features." Example 2: Intermediate-risk, surgical planning: "Patient is a 55-year-old male with Gleason 3+4=7 (Grade Group 2) prostate cancer, PSA 7.5, cT2a (palpable nodule <1/2 of right lobe). Partin tables: OC = 59%, EPE = 28%, SVI = 6%, LNI = 3%. Discussed: EPE risk 28% suggests moderate risk of cancer extending beyond the prostate capsule. Surgical plan: Right-sided nerve sparing will be avoided (wide excision) due to risk of EPE on that side; left side will have nerve sparing (low risk of EPE). ePLND not indicated (LNI 3% <5%). MRI (PI-RADS 4) shows no definite extracapsular extension. However, biopsy cores from right mid gland had 8mm tumor (70% core involvement). Decision: Proceed with robotic radical prostatectomy with planned right non-nerve-sparing, left nerve-sparing. Intraoperative frozen sections will be sent if margins are in question." Example 3: High-risk, ePLND decision: "Patient is a 62-year-old male with Gleason 4+3=7 (Grade Group 3), PSA 14.2, cT2c (palpable nodules both lobes). Partin tables: OC = 30%, EPE = 37%, SVI = 15%, LNI = 10%. LNI risk 10% exceeds the 5-7% threshold for extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) per NCCN/EAU guidelines. Plan: Radical prostatectomy with bilateral non-nerve-sparing (high EPE risk) and ePLND (obturator, internal iliac, external iliac nodes). Preoperative PSMA PET/CT requested to rule out distant metastases (if positive, may avoid surgery). Discussed possibility of adjuvant radiation and ADT based on final pathology. Genomic testing (Decipher) on biopsy tissue sent to assess risk of metastasis."

Origins & History

Alan W. Partin and the Brady Urological Institute

Dr. Alan W. Partin (1961-2017) was a distinguished urologist and cancer researcher at the Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. He earned his MD and PhD (Pharmacology) from Johns Hopkins, completed urology residency at Hopkins, and joined the faculty in 1992. He served as director of the Brady Urological Institute from 2009 until his death in 2017. His early research focused on developing nomograms to predict pathological stage in prostate cancer, leading to the first Partin tables in 1993. Over his career, he published over 400 peer-reviewed articles and trained generations of urologists. The Partin tables remain a lasting legacy, having been updated multiple times to reflect advances in diagnosis and treatment. The Brady Urological Institute continues to maintain and update online nomograms (including Partin tables) at the Hopkins Prostate Cancer Nomogram website.

Key Contributors and Timeline

Year	Contributor(s)	Institution	Contribution
1993	Partin AW, Yoo J, Carter HB, et al.	Johns Hopkins Brady Urological Institute	First Partin tables (n=1,237). Established PSA, Gleason, clinical stage for pathological stage prediction.
1997	Partin AW, Kattan MW, Subong EN, et al.	Johns Hopkins	First update (n=3,772). Expanded PSA range, refined Gleason categories.
2001	Partin AW, Mangold LA, Lamm DM, et al.	Johns Hopkins	Update (n=5,079). Included wider PSA ranges, T1c and T2 categories.
2007	Makarov DV, Trock BJ, Humphreys EB, et al.	Johns Hopkins	Update (n=4,767). Newer cohort (1999-2005).
2013	Eifler JB, Feng Z, Lin BM, Partin MT, et al.	Johns Hopkins	Most recent update (n=5,629, 2006-2011). Split Gleason 7 into 3+4 and 4+3; added T3a/T3b.
2014	Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, et al. (ISUP)	International Society of Urological Pathology	Grade Group system (GG1-5) introduced, which correlates with Partin table Gleason categories.
2017	Partin AW (passed away)	Johns Hopkins	His legacy continues with online nomograms and ongoing research at the Brady Urological Institute.
2020-2024	Various (MSKCC, UCLA, University of Michigan)	Multiple institutions	Development of newer nomograms incorporating MRI, genomic classifiers, and percentage of positive cores, often surpassing Partin tables in accuracy.

Future Directions: Partin Tables in the Era of MRI and Genomics

The Partin tables, while still clinically useful, are gradually being supplanted by more sophisticated nomograms that incorporate MRI findings (extracapsular extension on MRI, PI-RADS score) and genomic classifiers (Decipher, Prolaris, Oncotype DX). The 2013 Partin tables remain the last update, and it is uncertain whether a new update will be published given the rapid changes in prostate cancer diagnostics. However, the principles established by Partin—using pretreatment variables to predict pathological stage—remain foundational. Online tools such as the MSKCC Prostate Cancer Nomogram, UCLA CAPRA, and the Briganti LNI nomogram are now widely used. For clinicians without access to these, the Partin tables provide a simple, evidence-based starting point for patient counseling.

Last Comprehensive Review: 2026-07-17

In Recent Clinical News

Scanning Medical Journals

No new significant updates or guidelines matching this topic were found today. We will check again soon.

Variable

Partin Tables (Prostate Cancer)

When to Use

What are the Partin Tables?

Primary Clinical Indications

Contraindications / Limitations

Partin Table Variables and Categories (2013 Update)

Comparison with Other Prostate Cancer Risk Calculators

How it Works

Probability of Organ-Confined Disease (OC) – 2013 Partin Tables

Probability of Extraprostatic Extension (EPE) – 2013 Partin Tables (Selected Values)

Probability of Seminal Vesicle Invasion (SVI) – 2013 Partin Tables (Selected Values)

Probability of Lymph Node Involvement (LNI) – 2013 Partin Tables (Selected Values)

Clinical Pearls

Critical Pearl #1: Nerve-Sparing Surgery Decisions Based on EPE Probability

Critical Pearl #2: Extended Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection (ePLND) Based on LNI Probability

Critical Pearl #3: Partin Tables Do Not Predict Biochemical Recurrence (BCR)

Critical Pearl #4: The 2013 Partin Tables Are Becoming Outdated

Common Pitfalls in Partin Table Use

Partin Tables vs MRI for Staging

Next Steps

Step-by-Step Clinical Action Based on Partin Probabilities

Clinical Scenarios and Partin Table Application

Sample Clinical Documentation for Partin Tables

The Evidence

Primary Source: Partin Tables 2013 Update

An updated prostate cancer staging nomogram (Partin tables) based on cases from 2006 to 2011

Original Partin Table (1993)

The use of prostate specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage in men with localized prostate cancer

Validation and External Validation Studies

Validation of the Partin nomogram using a contemporary multi-institutional cohort

Comparison with MRI for EPE Prediction

A nomogram for predicting extraprostatic extension on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging

Origins & History

Alan W. Partin and the Brady Urological Institute

Key Contributors and Timeline

Future Directions: Partin Tables in the Era of MRI and Genomics

In Recent Clinical News

Partin Tables (Prostate Cancer)

When to Use

What are the Partin Tables?

Primary Clinical Indications

Contraindications / Limitations

Partin Table Variables and Categories (2013 Update)

Comparison with Other Prostate Cancer Risk Calculators

How it Works

Probability of Organ-Confined Disease (OC) – 2013 Partin Tables

Probability of Extraprostatic Extension (EPE) – 2013 Partin Tables (Selected Values)

Probability of Seminal Vesicle Invasion (SVI) – 2013 Partin Tables (Selected Values)

Probability of Lymph Node Involvement (LNI) – 2013 Partin Tables (Selected Values)

Clinical Pearls

Critical Pearl #1: Nerve-Sparing Surgery Decisions Based on EPE Probability

Critical Pearl #2: Extended Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection (ePLND) Based on LNI Probability

Critical Pearl #3: Partin Tables Do Not Predict Biochemical Recurrence (BCR)

Critical Pearl #4: The 2013 Partin Tables Are Becoming Outdated

Common Pitfalls in Partin Table Use

Partin Tables vs MRI for Staging

Next Steps

Step-by-Step Clinical Action Based on Partin Probabilities

Clinical Scenarios and Partin Table Application

Sample Clinical Documentation for Partin Tables

The Evidence

Primary Source: Partin Tables 2013 Update

An updated prostate cancer staging nomogram (Partin tables) based on cases from 2006 to 2011

Original Partin Table (1993)

The use of prostate specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage in men with localized prostate cancer

Validation and External Validation Studies

Validation of the Partin nomogram using a contemporary multi-institutional cohort

Comparison with MRI for EPE Prediction

A nomogram for predicting extraprostatic extension on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging

Origins & History

Alan W. Partin and the Brady Urological Institute

Key Contributors and Timeline

Future Directions: Partin Tables in the Era of MRI and Genomics

In Recent Clinical News