Literature DB >> 15758720

Ability of 2 pretreatment risk assessment methods to predict prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy: data from CaPSURE.

Joseph A Mitchell1, Matthew R Cooperberg, Eric P Elkin, Deborah P Lubeck, Shilpa S Mehta, Christopher J Kane, Peter R Carroll.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Two methods widely used to predict the risk of treatment failure after radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer are the 3 level D'Amico risk classification and the Kattan nomogram. Although they have been previously validated, to our knowledge they have not been compared in a community based cohort. We tested the 2 instruments in the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE) database, a national registry of patients with prostate cancer, to assess their accuracy in a community based cohort.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Men were invited to join CaPSURE from 33 American urology practices, of which 30 were community based. A total of 1,701 men with localized prostate cancer (T1-3a) were treated with radical prostatectomy between 1989 and 2000. Patients who received neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy were excluded. Recurrence was defined as 2 or more consecutive prostate specific antigen measurements of 0.2 ng/ml or greater, or a second treatment greater than 6 months after surgery. Freedom from progression (FFP) was based on life table estimates and Kaplan-Meier curves. Risk groups were compared using a Cox proportional hazards model and ANOVA.
RESULTS: Based on the D'Amico classification 671 cases (39%) were classified as low risk, 446 (26%) were intermediate risk and 584 (34%) were high risk. Five-year FFP was 78%, 63% and 60% in the low, intermediate and high risk groups (HR 1.00, 1.87 and 2.32 respectively, p <0.0001). Mean 5-year FFP predicted by the Kattan nomogram in the same risk groups was 91%, 74% and 69%, respectively. Outcomes in the low risk group were tightly grouped about the mean but there was considerable dispersion of outcomes in the intermediate (30% to 98% FFP) and high (17% to 98%) risk groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Stratifying patients in CaPSURE into low, intermediate and high risk categories for disease as described by D'Amico or applying the Kattan nomogram resulted in statistically significant differences in predicted 5-year FFP. However, there was considerable overlap of outcomes between the intermediate and high risk groups. This analysis suggests that simply estimating disease recurrence by stratifying patients into low, intermediate and high risk groups may not provide sufficient information for predicting outcomes among individuals.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15758720     DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000155535.25971.de

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  19 in total

1.  Predictive models for newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients.

Authors:  William T Lowrance; Peter T Scardino
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2009

2.  Evaluating the utility of a preoperative nomogram for predicting 90-day mortality following radical cystectomy for bladder cancer.

Authors:  Jennifer M Taylor; Andrew Feifer; Caroline J Savage; Alexandra C Maschino; Melanie Bernstein; Harry W Herr; S Machele Donat
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2011-07-01       Impact factor: 5.588

3.  Determining prostate cancer-specific death through quantification of stromogenic carcinoma area in prostatectomy specimens.

Authors:  Gustavo E Ayala; Bahar Muezzinoglu; Kai H Hammerich; Anna Frolov; Hao Liu; Peter T Scardino; Rile Li; Mohammad Sayeeduddin; Michael M Ittmann; Dov Kadmon; Brian J Miles; Thomas M Wheeler; David R Rowley
Journal:  Am J Pathol       Date:  2010-12-23       Impact factor: 4.307

Review 4.  Neoadjuvant Treatment of High-Risk, Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Prior to Radical Prostatectomy.

Authors:  Eugene J Pietzak; James A Eastham
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 3.092

5.  External validation of the cancer of the prostate risk assessment (CAPRA) score in a single-surgeon radical prostatectomy series.

Authors:  Stacy Loeb; Gustavo F Carvalhal; Donghui Kan; Angel Desai; William J Catalona
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2010-09-06       Impact factor: 3.498

6.  The University of California, San Francisco Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score: a straightforward and reliable preoperative predictor of disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Matthew R Cooperberg; David J Pasta; Eric P Elkin; Mark S Litwin; David M Latini; Janeen Du Chane; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  External validation of the ProCaRS nomograms and comparison of existing risk-stratification tools for localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  David Tiberi; George Rodrigues; Tom Pickles; Jim Morris; Juanita Crook; Andre-Guy Martin; Fabio Cury; Charles Catton; Himu Lukka; Andrew Warner; Daniel Taussky
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2017 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 8.  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

9.  High-risk prostate cancer in the United States, 1990-2007.

Authors:  Matthew R Cooperberg; Janet Cowan; Jeannette M Broering; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2008-03-28       Impact factor: 4.226

10.  Nomogram-based estimate of axillary nodal involvement in ACOSOG Z0011 (Alliance): validation and association with radiation protocol variations.

Authors:  Matthew S Katz; Linda McCall; Karla Ballman; Reshma Jagsi; Bruce G Haffty; Armando E Giuliano
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2020-02-10       Impact factor: 4.872

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.