PURPOSE: A postoperative nomogram for prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy (RP) has been independently validated as accurate and discriminating. We have updated the nomogram by extending the predictions to 10 years after RP and have enabled the nomogram predictions to be adjusted for the disease-free interval that a patient has maintained after RP. METHODS: Cox regression analysis was used to model the clinical information for 1,881 patients who underwent RP for clinically-localized prostate cancer by two high-volume surgeons. The model was externally validated separately on two independent cohorts of 1,782 patients and 1,357 patients, respectively. Disease progression was defined as a rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, clinical progression, radiotherapy more than 12 months postoperatively, or initiation of systemic therapy. RESULTS: The 10-year progression-free probability for the modeling set was 79% (95% CI, 75% to 82%). Significant variables in the multivariable model included PSA (P = .002), primary (P < .0001) and secondary Gleason grade (P = .0006), extracapsular extension (P < .0001), positive surgical margins (P = .028), seminal vesicle invasion (P < .0001), lymph node involvement (P = .030), treatment year (P = .008), and adjuvant radiotherapy (P = .046). The concordance index of the nomogram when applied to the independent validation sets was 0.81 and 0.79. CONCLUSION: We have developed and validated as a robust predictive model an enhanced postoperative nomogram for prostate cancer recurrence after RP. Unique to predictive models, the nomogram predictions can be adjusted for the disease-free interval that a patient has achieved after RP.
PURPOSE: A postoperative nomogram for prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy (RP) has been independently validated as accurate and discriminating. We have updated the nomogram by extending the predictions to 10 years after RP and have enabled the nomogram predictions to be adjusted for the disease-free interval that a patient has maintained after RP. METHODS: Cox regression analysis was used to model the clinical information for 1,881 patients who underwent RP for clinically-localized prostate cancer by two high-volume surgeons. The model was externally validated separately on two independent cohorts of 1,782 patients and 1,357 patients, respectively. Disease progression was defined as a rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, clinical progression, radiotherapy more than 12 months postoperatively, or initiation of systemic therapy. RESULTS: The 10-year progression-free probability for the modeling set was 79% (95% CI, 75% to 82%). Significant variables in the multivariable model included PSA (P = .002), primary (P < .0001) and secondary Gleason grade (P = .0006), extracapsular extension (P < .0001), positive surgical margins (P = .028), seminal vesicle invasion (P < .0001), lymph node involvement (P = .030), treatment year (P = .008), and adjuvant radiotherapy (P = .046). The concordance index of the nomogram when applied to the independent validation sets was 0.81 and 0.79. CONCLUSION: We have developed and validated as a robust predictive model an enhanced postoperative nomogram for prostate cancer recurrence after RP. Unique to predictive models, the nomogram predictions can be adjusted for the disease-free interval that a patient has achieved after RP.
Authors: T M Wheeler; O Dillioglugil; M W Kattan; A Arakawa; S Soh; K Suyama; M Ohori; P T Scardino Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 1998-08 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: Thomas A Stamey; Mitchell Caldwell; John E McNeal; Rosalie Nolley; Marci Hemenez; Joshua Downs Journal: J Urol Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Ilias Cagiannos; Pierre Karakiewicz; Markus Graefen; James A Eastham; Makoto Ohori; Farhang Rabbani; Victor Reuter; Thomas Wheeler; Patrick Kupelian; Eric Klein; Hartwig Huland; Peter G Hammerer; Andreas Erbersdobler; Fritz Schroeder; Mark Wildhagen; David I Quinn; Susan M Henshall; John J Grygiel; Robert L Sutherland; Phillip D Stricker; Christopher G Morash; Peter T Scardino; Michael W Kattan Journal: J Urol Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Kirsten L Greene; Maxwell V Meng; Eric P Elkin; Matthew R Cooperberg; David J Pasta; Michael W Kattan; Katrine Wallace; Peter R Carroll Journal: J Urol Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Allen S Ho; Lu Wang; Frank L Palmer; Changhong Yu; Arnbjorn Toset; Snehal Patel; Michael W Kattan; R Michael Tuttle; Ian Ganly Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2014-11-04 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Andrew J Vickers; Caroline J Savage; Fernando J Bianco; Eric A Klein; Michael W Kattan; Fernando P Secin; Bertrand D Guilloneau; Peter T Scardino Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2010-06-09 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Ioannis Anastasiou; Stavros I Tyritzis; Ioannis Adamakis; Dionysios Mitropoulos; Konstantinos G Stravodimos; Ioannis Katafigiotis; Antonios Balangas; Anastasios Kollias; Kitty Pavlakis; Constantinos A Constantinides Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2010-10-30 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Giovanni Lughezzani; Alberto Briganti; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Michael W Kattan; Francesco Montorsi; Shahrokh F Shariat; Andrew J Vickers Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-08-06 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Supriya Gupta; Jennifer Waller; Jimmy Brown; Yolanda Elam; James V Rawson; Darko Pucar Journal: Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2019-08-16
Authors: Pauliina Helo; Angel M Cronin; Daniel C Danila; Sven Wenske; Rita Gonzalez-Espinoza; Aseem Anand; Michael Koscuiszka; Riina-Minna Väänänen; Kim Pettersson; Felix K-H Chun; Thomas Steuber; Hartwig Huland; Bertrand D Guillonneau; James A Eastham; Peter T Scardino; Martin Fleisher; Howard I Scher; Hans Lilja Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2009-02-20 Impact factor: 8.327
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