Literature DB >> 12149292

International validation of a preoperative nomogram for prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

Markus Graefen1, Pierre I Karakiewicz, Ilias Cagiannos, David I Quinn, Susan M Henshall, John J Grygiel, Robert L Sutherland, Phillip D Stricker, Eric Klein, Patrick Kupelian, Donald G Skinner, Gary Lieskovsky, Bernard Bochner, Hartwig Huland, Peter G Hammerer, Alexander Haese, Andreas Erbersdobler, James A Eastham, Jean de Kernion, Thomas Cangiano, Fritz H Schröder, Mark F Wildhagen, Theo H van der Kwast, Peter T Scardino, Michael W Kattan.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We evaluated the predictive accuracy of a recently published preoperative nomogram for prostate cancer that predicts 5-year freedom from recurrence. We applied this nomogram to patients from seven different institutions spanning three continents.
METHODS: Clinical data of 6,754 patients were supplied for validation, and 6,232 complete records were used. Nomogram-predicted probabilities of 60-month freedom from recurrence were compared with actual follow-up in two ways. First, areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) were determined for the entire data set according to several variables, including the institution where treatment was delivered. Second, nomogram classification-based risk quadrants were compared with actual Kaplan-Meier plots.
RESULTS: The AUC for all institutions combined was 0.75, with individual institution AUCs ranging from 0.67 to 0.83. Nomogram predictions for each risk quadrant were similar to actual freedom from recurrence rates: predicted probabilities of 87% (low-risk group), 64% (intermediate-low-risk group), 39% (intermediate-high-risk group), and 14% (high-risk group) corresponded to actual rates of 86%, 64%, 42%, and 17%, respectively. The use of neoadjuvant therapy, variation in the prostate-specific antigen recurrence definitions between institutions, and minor differences in the way the Gleason grade was reported did not substantially affect the predictive accuracy of the nomogram.
CONCLUSION: The nomogram is accurate when applied at international treatment institutions with similar patient selection and management strategies. Despite the potential for heterogeneity in patient selection and management, most predictions demonstrated high concordance with actual observations. Our results demonstrate that accurate predictions may be expected across different patient populations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12149292     DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2002.12.019

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  38 in total

1.  Risk assessment for biochemical recurrence prior to radical prostatectomy: significant enhancement contributed by human glandular kallikrein 2 (hK2) and free prostate specific antigen (PSA) in men with moderate PSA-elevation in serum.

Authors:  Thomas Steuber; Andrew J Vickers; Alexander Haese; Charlotte Becker; Kim Pettersson; Felix K-H Chun; Michael W Kattan; James A Eastham; Peter T Scardino; Hartwig Huland; Hans Lilja
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2006-03-01       Impact factor: 7.396

Review 2.  Role of nomograms for prostate cancer in 2007.

Authors:  Felix K-H Chun; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Hartwig Huland; Markus Graefen
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2007-02-27       Impact factor: 4.226

3.  Adjuvant radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy: Genito-Urinary Radiation Oncologists of Canada Consensus Statement.

Authors:  Tom Pickles; Scott Morgan; Gerard Morton; Louis Souhami; Padraig Warde; Himu Lukka
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 1.862

4.  Prediction models in cancer care.

Authors:  Andrew J Vickers
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2011-06-23       Impact factor: 508.702

5.  Pathological and 3 Tesla Volumetric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Predictors of Biochemical Recurrence after Robotic Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Correlation with Whole Mount Histopathology.

Authors:  Nelly Tan; Luyao Shen; Pooria Khoshnoodi; Héctor E Alcalá; Weixia Yu; William Hsu; Robert E Reiter; David Y Lu; Steven S Raman
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2017-11-08       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  A preoperative personalized risk assessment calculator for elderly ovarian cancer patients undergoing primary cytoreductive surgery.

Authors:  Emma L Barber; Sarah Rutstein; William C Miller; Paola A Gehrig
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2015-10-23       Impact factor: 5.482

Review 7.  Critical review of prostate cancer predictive tools.

Authors:  Shahrokh F Shariat; Michael W Kattan; Andrew J Vickers; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Peter T Scardino
Journal:  Future Oncol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 3.404

8.  Prostate cancer risk assessment: choosing the sharpest tool in the shed.

Authors:  Matthew R Cooperberg
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2008-12-01       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  [Systematic analysis of treatment results as a quality control instrument using the example of a large European center].

Authors:  B Beyer; H Huland; M Graefen
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 0.639

10.  Detection of circulating tumor cells in different stages of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Mark Thalgott; Brigitte Rack; Tobias Maurer; Michael Souvatzoglou; Matthias Eiber; Veronika Kreß; Matthias M Heck; Ulrich Andergassen; Roman Nawroth; Jürgen E Gschwend; Margitta Retz
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-01-29       Impact factor: 4.553

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.