BACKGROUND: Models are available to accurately predict biochemical disease recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP). Because not all patients experiencing BCR will progress to metastatic disease, it is appealing to determine postoperatively which patients are likely to manifest systemic disease. METHODS: The study cohort consisted of 881 patients undergoing RP between 1985 and 2003. Clinical failure (CF) was defined as metastases, a rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in a castrate state, or death from prostate cancer. The cohort was randomized into training and validation sets. The accuracy of 4 models to predict clinical outcome within 5 years of RP were compared: 'postoperative BCR nomogram' and 'Cox regression CF model' based on standard clinical and pathologic parameters, and 2 CF 'systems pathology' models that integrate clinical and pathologic parameters with quantitative histomorphometric and immunofluorescent biomarker features ('systems pathology Models 1 and 2'). RESULTS: When applied to the validation set, the concordance index for the postoperative BCR nomogram was 0.85, for the Cox regression CF model 0.84, for systems pathology Model 1 0.81, and for systems pathology Model 2 0.85. CONCLUSIONS: Models predicting either BCR or CF after RP exhibit similarly high levels of accuracy because standard clinical and pathologic variables appear to be the primary determinants of both outcomes. It is possible that introducing current or novel biomarkers found to be uniquely associated with disease progression may further enhance the accuracy of the systems pathology-based platform. Copyright (c) 2009 American Cancer Society.
BACKGROUND: Models are available to accurately predict biochemical disease recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP). Because not all patients experiencing BCR will progress to metastatic disease, it is appealing to determine postoperatively which patients are likely to manifest systemic disease. METHODS: The study cohort consisted of 881 patients undergoing RP between 1985 and 2003. Clinical failure (CF) was defined as metastases, a rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in a castrate state, or death from prostate cancer. The cohort was randomized into training and validation sets. The accuracy of 4 models to predict clinical outcome within 5 years of RP were compared: 'postoperative BCR nomogram' and 'Cox regression CF model' based on standard clinical and pathologic parameters, and 2 CF 'systems pathology' models that integrate clinical and pathologic parameters with quantitative histomorphometric and immunofluorescent biomarker features ('systems pathology Models 1 and 2'). RESULTS: When applied to the validation set, the concordance index for the postoperative BCR nomogram was 0.85, for the Cox regression CF model 0.84, for systems pathology Model 1 0.81, and for systems pathology Model 2 0.85. CONCLUSIONS: Models predicting either BCR or CF after RP exhibit similarly high levels of accuracy because standard clinical and pathologic variables appear to be the primary determinants of both outcomes. It is possible that introducing current or novel biomarkers found to be uniquely associated with disease progression may further enhance the accuracy of the systems pathology-based platform. Copyright (c) 2009 American Cancer Society.
Authors: Gerald W Hull; Farhang Rabbani; Farhat Abbas; Thomas M Wheeler; Michael W Kattan; Peter T Scardino Journal: J Urol Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Anthony V D'Amico; Judd Moul; Peter R Carroll; Leon Sun; Deborah Lubeck; Ming-Hui Chen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-06-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Carlos Cordon-Cardo; Angeliki Kotsianti; David A Verbel; Mikhail Teverovskiy; Paola Capodieci; Stefan Hamann; Yusuf Jeffers; Mark Clayton; Faysal Elkhettabi; Faisal M Khan; Marina Sapir; Valentina Bayer-Zubek; Yevgen Vengrenyuk; Stephen Fogarsi; Olivier Saidi; Victor E Reuter; Howard I Scher; Michael W Kattan; Fernando J Bianco; Thomas M Wheeler; Gustavo E Ayala; Peter T Scardino; Michael J Donovan Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Anthony V D'Amico; Judd W Moul; Peter R Carroll; Leon Sun; Deborah Lubeck; Ming-Hui Chen Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2003-09-17 Impact factor: 13.506
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
Authors: Daniel M Moreira; Joseph C Presti; William J Aronson; Martha K Terris; Christopher J Kane; Christopher L Amling; Leon L Sun; Judd W Moul; Stephen J Freedland Journal: Int J Urol Date: 2010-09-30 Impact factor: 3.369
Authors: Florian R Schroeck; Michael W Kattan; Judd W Moul; William J Aronson; Joseph C Presti; Martha K Terris; Christopher J Kane; Christopher L Amling; Leon Sun; Stephen J Freedland Journal: BJU Int Date: 2009-11-13 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Justin M Ream; Paul Nolan; Henry Rusinek; Fang-Ming Deng; Samir S Taneja Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 3.959