Literature DB >> 18286530

A nomogram predicting long-term biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

Nazareno Suardi1, Christopher R Porter, Alwyn M Reuther, Jochen Walz, Koichi Kodama, Robert P Gibbons, Roy Correa, Francesco Montorsi, Markus Graefen, Hartwig Huland, Eric A Klein, Pierre I Karakiewicz.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Men who undergo radical prostatectomy (RP) are at long-term risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR). In this report, the authors have described a model capable of predicting BCR up to at least 15 years after RP that can adjust predictions according to the disease-free interval.
METHODS: Cox regression was used to model the probability of BCR (a prostate-specific antigen level>0.1 ng/mL and rising) in 601 men who underwent RP with a median follow-up of 11.4 years. The statistical significance of nomogram predictors was confirmed with a competing-risks regression model. The model was validated internally with 200 bootstraps and externally at 5 years, 10 years, and 15 years in 2 independent cohorts of 2963 and 3178 contemporary RP patients from 2 institutions.
RESULTS: The 5-year, 10-year, 15-year, and 20-year actuarial rates of BCR-free survival were 84.8%, 71.2%, 61.1%, and 58.6%, respectively. Pathologic stage, surgical margin status, pathologic Gleason sum, type of RP, and adjuvant radiotherapy represented independent predictors of BCR in both Cox and competing-risks regression models and constituted the nomogram predictor variables. In internal validation, the nomogram accuracy was 79.3%, 77.2%, 79.7%, and 80.6% at 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, and 20 years, respectively, after RP. In external validation, the nomogram was 77.4% accurate at 5 years in the first cohort and 77.9%, 79.4%, and 86.3% accurate at 5 years, 10 years, and 15 years, respectively, in the second cohort.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients who undergo RP remain at risk of BCR beyond 10 years after RP. The nomogram described in this report distinguishes itself from other tools by its ability to accurately predict the conditional probability of BCR up to at least 15 years after surgery. Copyright (c) 2008 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18286530     DOI: 10.1002/cncr.23293

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  23 in total

Review 1.  Predictive and prognostic models in radical prostatectomy candidates: a critical analysis of the literature.

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

Review 2.  Prostate cancer nomograms: a review of their use in cancer detection and treatment.

Authors:  R J Caras; Joseph R Sterbis
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 3.092

3.  68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT in prostate cancer local recurrence: impact of early images and parametric analysis.

Authors:  Christos Sachpekidis; Leyun Pan; Boris A Hadaschik; Klaus Kopka; Uwe Haberkorn; Antonia Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss
Journal:  Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2018-10-20

4.  Positive STAT5 Protein and Locus Amplification Status Predicts Recurrence after Radical Prostatectomy to Assist Clinical Precision Management of Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Bassem R Haddad; Andrew Erickson; Vindhya Udhane; Peter S LaViolette; Janice D Rone; Markku A Kallajoki; William A See; Antti Rannikko; Tuomas Mirtti; Marja T Nevalainen
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2019-07-10       Impact factor: 4.254

5.  Impact of Gleason score on biochemical recurrence in patients with pT3aN0/Nx prostate cancer with positive surgical margins: a multicenter study from the Prostate Cancer Research Committee.

Authors:  Wan Song; Dong Hyeon Lee; Hwang Gyun Jeon; Byong Chang Jeong; Seong Il Seo; Hyun Moo Lee; Han Yong Choi; Jong Wook Kim; SangChul Lee; Seok-Soo Byun; Chang Wook Jeong; Cheol Kwak; Jin Seon Cho; Hanjong Ahn; Seong Soo Jeon
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2017-08-19       Impact factor: 4.553

6.  Positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy predict prostate cancer specific mortality.

Authors:  Jonathan L Wright; Bruce L Dalkin; Lawrence D True; William J Ellis; Janet L Stanford; Paul H Lange; Daniel W Lin
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Prospective comparison of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT, 18F-sodium fluoride PET/CT and diffusion weighted-MRI at for the detection of bone metastases in biochemically recurrent prostate cancer.

Authors:  Helle D Zacho; Julie B Nielsen; Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Uwe Haberkorn; Nandita deSouza; Katja De Paepe; Katja Dettmann; Niels C Langkilde; Christian Haarmark; Rune V Fisker; Dennis T Arp; Jesper Carl; Jørgen B Jensen; Lars J Petersen
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2018-06-06       Impact factor: 9.236

8.  Oncologic surveillance following radical cystectomy: an individualized risk-based approach.

Authors:  Suzanne B Merrill; Stephen A Boorjian; R Houston Thompson; Sarah P Psutka; John C Cheville; Prabin Thapa; Matthew K Tollefson; Igor Frank
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2017-07-06       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 9.  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

10.  Tumor volume, tumor percentage involvement, or prostate volume: which is predictive of prostate-specific antigen recurrence?

Authors:  Matthew A Uhlman; Leon Sun; Danielle A Stackhouse; Arthur A Caire; Thomas J Polascik; Cary N Robertson; John Madden; Robin Vollmer; David M Albala; Judd W Moul
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2009-10-12       Impact factor: 2.649

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.