Literature DB >> 14571407

Predicting clinical end points: treatment nomograms in prostate cancer.

Christopher J Di Blasio1, Audrey C Rhee, Daniel Cho, Peter T Scardino, Michael W Kattan.   

Abstract

Due to the generally indolent nature of prostate cancer, patients must decide among a wide range of treatments, which will significantly affect both quality of life and survival. Thus, there is a need for instruments to aid patients and their physicians in decision analysis. Nomograms are instruments that predict outcomes for the individual patient. Using algorithms that incorporate multiple variables, nomograms calculate the predicted probability that a patient will reach a clinical end point of interest. Nomograms tend to outperform both expert clinicians and predictive instruments based on risk grouping. We outline principles for nomogram construction, including considerations for choice of clinical end points and appropriate predictive variables, and methods for model validation. Currently, nomograms are available to predict progression-free probability after several primary treatments for localized prostate cancer. There is need for additional models that predict other clinical end points, especially survival adjusted for quality of life.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14571407     DOI: 10.1016/s0093-7754(03)00351-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Semin Oncol        ISSN: 0093-7754            Impact factor:   4.929


  6 in total

1.  Preoperative nomograms incorporating magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for prediction of insignificant prostate cancer.

Authors:  Amita Shukla-Dave; Hedvig Hricak; Oguz Akin; Changhong Yu; Kristen L Zakian; Kazuma Udo; Peter T Scardino; James Eastham; Michael W Kattan
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2011-09-20       Impact factor: 5.588

2.  Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging versus Partin tables and the Memorial Sloan-Kettering cancer center nomogram in risk stratification of patients with prostate cancer referred to external beam radiation therapy.

Authors:  Rossano Girometti; Martina Pancot; Marco Andrea Signor; Martina Urbani; Luca Balestreri; Chiara Zuiani
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2018-05-12       Impact factor: 3.469

3.  Pattern of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) failure dictates the probability of a positive bone scan in patients with an increasing PSA after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Zohar A Dotan; Fernando J Bianco; Farhang Rabbani; James A Eastham; Paul Fearn; Howard I Scher; Kevin W Kelly; Hui-Ni Chen; Heiko Schöder; Hedvig Hricak; Peter T Scardino; Michael W Kattan
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2005-03-20       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  Incremental value of magnetic resonance imaging in the advanced management of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Liang Wang
Journal:  World J Radiol       Date:  2009-12-31

5.  Impact of tertiary Gleason pattern 5 on prostate cancer aggressiveness: Lessons from a contemporary single institution radical prostatectomy series.

Authors:  Zachary B Koloff; Daniel A Hamstra; John T Wei; Jeffrey S Montgomery; Scott A Tomlins; Angela J Wu; Todd M Morgan; Javed Siddiqui; Kellie Paich; Arul M Chinnaiyan; Felix Y Feng; Alon Z Weizer; Lakshmi P Kunju; Brent K Hollenbeck; David C Miller; Ganesh S Palapattu; Rohit Mehra
Journal:  Asian J Urol       Date:  2015-04-16

6.  Prognostic Significance of Young Age and Non-Bone Metastasis at Diagnosis in Patients with Metastatic Prostate Cancer: a SEER Population-Based Data Analysis.

Authors:  Yadong Guo; Shiyu Mao; Aihong Zhang; Ruiliang Wang; Ziwei Zhang; Junfeng Zhang; Longsheng Wang; Wentao Zhang; Yuan Wu; Lin Ye; Bin Yang; Xudong Yao
Journal:  J Cancer       Date:  2019-01-01       Impact factor: 4.207

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.