Literature DB >> 18823041

An updated catalog of prostate cancer predictive tools.

Shahrokh F Shariat1, Pierre I Karakiewicz, Claus G Roehrborn, Michael W Kattan.   

Abstract

Accurate estimates of risk are essential for physicians if they are to recommend a specific management to patients with prostate cancer. Accurate risk estimates also are required for clinical trial design to ensure that homogeneous, high-risk patient groups are used to investigate new cancer therapeutics. Using the MEDLINE database, a literature search was performed on prostate cancer predictive tools from January 1966 to July 2007. The authors recorded input variables, the prediction form, the number of patients used to develop prediction tools, the outcome being predicted, prediction tool-specific features, predictive accuracy, and whether validation was performed. Each prediction tool was classified into patient clinical disease state and the outcome being predicted. First, the authors described the criteria for evaluation (predictive accuracy, calibration, generalizability, head-to-head comparison, and level of complexity) and the limitations of current predictive tools. The literature search generated 109 published prediction tools, including only 68 that had undergone validation. An increasing number of predictive tools addressed important endpoints, such as disease recurrence, metastasis, and survival. Despite their limitations and the limitations of data, predictive tools are essential for individualized, evidence-based medical decision making. Moreover, the authors recommend wider adoption of risk-prediction models in the design and implementation of clinical trials. Among prediction tools, nomograms provide superior, individualized, disease-related risk estimations that facilitate management-related decisions. Nevertheless, many more predictive tools, comparisons between them, and improvements to existing tools are needed. (c) 2008 American Cancer Society

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18823041     DOI: 10.1002/cncr.23908

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


  100 in total

1.  Prostate cancer: predicting tumor aggressiveness using DWI-guided biopsy.

Authors:  Chan Kyo Kim; Satoru Takahashi
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2011-10-25       Impact factor: 14.432

2.  Deriving benefit of early detection from biomarker-based prognostic models.

Authors:  L Y T Inoue; R Gulati; C Yu; M W Kattan; R Etzioni
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2012-06-22       Impact factor: 5.899

3.  Bladder cancer: nomogram aids clinical decision making after radical cystectomy.

Authors:  Shahrokh F Shariat; Derya Tilki
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 4.  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 5.  Traditional statistical methods for evaluating prediction models are uninformative as to clinical value: towards a decision analytic framework.

Authors:  Andrew J Vickers; Angel M Cronin
Journal:  Semin Oncol       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 4.929

Review 6.  What is the pathologist saying? Interpretation of the prostate pathology report.

Authors:  Omar Hameed
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 3.092

7.  Prediction of biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy in men with prostate cancer by diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: initial results.

Authors:  Sung Yoon Park; Chan Kyo Kim; Byung Kwan Park; Hyun Moo Lee; Kyung Soo Lee
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-11-03       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 8.  Communicating uncertainty in cancer prognosis: A review of web-based prognostic tools.

Authors:  Mark Harrison; Paul K J Han; Borsika Rabin; Madelaine Bell; Hannah Kay; Luke Spooner; Stuart Peacock; Nick Bansback
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2018-12-12

9.  High levels of glioma tumor suppressor candidate region gene 1 predicts a poor prognosis for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Xiaoming Ma; Tao Du; Dingjun Zhu; Xianju Chen; Yiming Lai; Wanhua Wu; Qiong Wang; Chunhao Lin; Zean Li; Leyuan Liu; Hai Huang
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2018-09-24       Impact factor: 2.967

Review 10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.