Literature DB >> 19801202

Calibration and discriminatory accuracy of prognosis calculation for breast cancer with the online Adjuvant! program: a hospital-based retrospective cohort study.

Stella Mook1, Marjanka K Schmidt, Emiel J Rutgers, Anthonie O van de Velde, Otto Visser, Sterre M Rutgers, Nicola Armstrong, Laura J van't Veer, Peter M Ravdin.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant! is a web-based program that calculates individualised 10-year survival probabilities and predicted benefit of adjuvant systemic therapy. The Adjuvant! model has not been validated in any large European series. The aim of our study was to validate Adjuvant! in Dutch patients, investigating both its calibration and discriminatory accuracy.
METHODS: Patients who were at least partly treated at the Netherlands Cancer Institute for breast cancer between 1987 and 1998 were included if they met the following criteria: tumour size T1 (< or =2 cm), T2 (2-5 cm), or T3 (>5 cm), invasive breast carcinoma, with information about involvement of axillary lymph nodes available, no distant metastases, primary surgery, axillary staging, and radiotherapy according to national guidelines. Clinicopathological characteristics and adjuvant treatment data were retrieved from hospital records and medical registries and were entered into the Adjuvant! (version 8.0) batch processor with blinding to outcome. Endpoints were overall survival and the proportion of patients that did not die from breast cancer (breast-cancer-specific survival [BCSS]).
FINDINGS: 5380 patients were included with median follow-up of 11.7 years (range 0.03-21.8). The 10-year observed overall survival (69.0%) and BCSS (78.6%) and Adjuvant! predicted overall survival (69.1%) and BCSS (77.8%) were not statistically different (p=0.87 and p=0.18, respectively). Moreover, differences between predicted and observed outcomes were within 2% for most relevant clinicopathological subgroups. In patients younger than 40 years, Adjuvant! overestimated overall survival by 4.2% (p=0.04) and BCSS by 4.7% (p=0.01). The concordance index, which indicates discriminatory accuracy at the individual level, was 0.71 for BCSS in the entire cohort.
INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant! accurately predicted 10-year outcomes in this large-scale Dutch validation study and is of use for adjuvant treatment decision making, although the results may be less reliable in some subgroups.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19801202     DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70254-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lancet Oncol        ISSN: 1470-2045            Impact factor:   41.316


  59 in total

Review 1.  Histological types of breast cancer: how special are they?

Authors:  Britta Weigelt; Felipe C Geyer; Jorge S Reis-Filho
Journal:  Mol Oncol       Date:  2010-04-18       Impact factor: 6.603

Review 2.  Breast cancer assessment tools and optimizing adjuvant therapy.

Authors:  Catherine Oakman; Libero Santarpia; Angelo Di Leo
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-10-26       Impact factor: 66.675

3.  Utility of prognostic genomic tests in breast cancer practice: The IMPAKT 2012 Working Group Consensus Statement.

Authors:  H A Azim; S Michiels; F Zagouri; S Delaloge; M Filipits; M Namer; P Neven; W F Symmans; A Thompson; F André; S Loi; C Swanton
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2013-01-20       Impact factor: 32.976

4.  Gene expression profiling in breast cancer.

Authors:  Belisario A Arango; Celine L Rivera; Stefan Glück
Journal:  Am J Transl Res       Date:  2013-03-28       Impact factor: 4.060

5.  Clinical and Genomic Risk to Guide the Use of Adjuvant Therapy for Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Joseph A Sparano; Robert J Gray; Peter M Ravdin; Della F Makower; Kathleen I Pritchard; Kathy S Albain; Daniel F Hayes; Charles E Geyer; Elizabeth C Dees; Matthew P Goetz; John A Olson; Tracy Lively; Sunil S Badve; Thomas J Saphner; Lynne I Wagner; Timothy J Whelan; Matthew J Ellis; Soonmyung Paik; William C Wood; Maccon M Keane; Henry L Gomez Moreno; Pavan S Reddy; Timothy F Goggins; Ingrid A Mayer; Adam M Brufsky; Deborah L Toppmeyer; Virginia G Kaklamani; Jeffrey L Berenberg; Jeffrey Abrams; George W Sledge
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2019-06-03       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Computer-Assisted Nuclear Atypia Scoring of Breast Cancer: a Preliminary Study.

Authors:  Ziba Gandomkar; Patrick C Brennan; Claudia Mello-Thoms
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 4.056

7.  Modern Risk Assessment for Individualizing Treatment Concepts in Early-stage Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Alex Farr; Rachel Wuerstlein; Annika Heiduschka; Christian F Singer; Nadia Harbeck
Journal:  Rev Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2013

8.  Interaction of mammographic breast density with menopausal status and postmenopausal hormone use in relation to the risk of aggressive breast cancer subtypes.

Authors:  Lusine Yaghjyan; Rulla M Tamimi; Kimberly A Bertrand; Christopher G Scott; Matthew R Jensen; V Shane Pankratz; Kathy Brandt; Daniel Visscher; Aaron Norman; Fergus Couch; John Shepherd; Bo Fan; Yunn-Yi Chen; Lin Ma; Andrew H Beck; Steven R Cummings; Karla Kerlikowske; Celine M Vachon
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2017-06-17       Impact factor: 4.872

Review 9.  Breast cancer classification and prognostication through diverse systems along with recent emerging findings in this respect; the dawn of new perspectives in the clinical applications.

Authors:  Vida Pourteimoor; Samira Mohammadi-Yeganeh; Mahdi Paryan
Journal:  Tumour Biol       Date:  2016-09-20

10.  A multichannel Markov random field framework for tumor segmentation with an application to classification of gene expression-based breast cancer recurrence risk.

Authors:  Ahmed B Ashraf; Sara C Gavenonis; Dania Daye; Carolyn Mies; Mark A Rosen; Despina Kontos
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2012-09-19       Impact factor: 10.048

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.