Literature DB >> 19823979

Clinical benefits of a multivariate prediction model for bladder cancer: a decision analytic approach.

Andrew J Vickers1, Angel M Cronin, Michael W Kattan, Mithat Gonen, Peter T Scardino, Matthew I Milowsky, Guido Dalbagni, Bernard H Bochner.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: It has been demonstrated that multivariate prediction models predict cancer outcomes more accurately than cancer stage; however, the effects of these models on clinical management are unclear. The objective of the current study was to determine whether a previously published multivariate prediction model for bladder cancer ("bladder nomogram") improved medical decision making when referral for adjuvant chemotherapy was used as a model.
METHODS: Data were analyzed from an international cohort study of 4462 patients who underwent cystectomy without chemotherapy from 1969 to 2004. The number of patients eligible for chemotherapy was determined using pathologic stage criteria (lymph node-positive disease or pathologic T3 [pT3] or pT4 tumor classification) and for 3 cutoff levels on the bladder nomogram (10%, 25%, and 70% risk of recurrence with surgery alone). The number of recurrences was calculated by applying a relative risk reduction to the baseline risk among eligible patients. Clinical net benefit was then calculated by combining recurrences and treatments and weighting the latter by a factor related to drug tolerability.
RESULTS: A nomogram cutoff outperformed pathologic stage for chemotherapy in every scenario of drug effectiveness and tolerability. For a drug with a relative risk of 0.80, with which clinicians would treat <or=20 patients to prevent 1 recurrence, use of the nomogram was equivalent to a strategy that resulted in 60 fewer chemotherapy treatments per 1000 patients without any increase in recurrence rates.
CONCLUSIONS: The authors concluded that referring patients who undergo cystectomy to adjuvant chemotherapy on the basis of a multivariate model is likely to lead to better patient outcomes than the use of pathologic stage. Further research is warranted to evaluate the clinical effects of multivariate prediction models. (c) 2009 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19823979      PMCID: PMC2785133          DOI: 10.1002/cncr.24615

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


  23 in total

1.  [Treatment of lumbar disc prolapse].

Authors:  Per Bennicke
Journal:  Ugeskr Laeger       Date:  2008-09-01

2.  Comparing tumour staging and grading systems: a case study and a review of the issues, using thymoma as a model.

Authors:  C B Begg; L D Cramer; E S Venkatraman; J Rosai
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2000-08-15       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 3.  Estimating sample sizes for binary, ordered categorical, and continuous outcomes in two group comparisons.

Authors:  M J Campbell; S A Julious; D G Altman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-10-28

4.  A nomogram that predicts the presence of sentinel node metastasis in melanoma with better discrimination than the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system.

Authors:  Sandra L Wong; Michael W Kattan; Kelly M McMasters; Daniel G Coit
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2005-03-14       Impact factor: 5.344

5.  Computer program to assist in making decisions about adjuvant therapy for women with early breast cancer.

Authors:  P M Ravdin; L A Siminoff; G J Davis; M B Mercer; J Hewlett; N Gerson; H L Parker
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2001-02-15       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Pretreatment nomogram for predicting the outcome of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy in prostate cancer.

Authors:  M W Kattan; M J Zelefsky; P A Kupelian; P T Scardino; Z Fuks; S A Leibel
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2000-10-01       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Prognostic nomogram and index for overall survival in previously untreated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Authors:  William G Wierda; Susan O'Brien; Xuemei Wang; Stefan Faderl; Alessandra Ferrajoli; Kim-Anh Do; Jorge Cortes; Deborah Thomas; Guillermo Garcia-Manero; Charles Koller; Miloslav Beran; Francis Giles; Farhad Ravandi; Susan Lerner; Hagop Kantarjian; Michael Keating
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2007-02-13       Impact factor: 22.113

8.  Validation of a nomogram for predicting disease-specific survival after an R0 resection for gastric carcinoma.

Authors:  Koen C M J Peeters; Michael W Kattan; Henk H Hartgrink; Elma Klein Kranenbarg; Martin S Karpeh; Murray F Brennan; Cornelis J H van de Velde
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2005-02-15       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Preoperative probability model for predicting overall survival after resection of pulmonary metastases from colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Y Kanemitsu; T Kato; T Hirai; K Yasui
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 6.939

10.  Selecting patients for randomized trials: a systematic approach based on risk group.

Authors:  Andrew J Vickers; Barry S Kramer; Stuart G Baker
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2006-10-05       Impact factor: 2.279

View more
  14 in total

1.  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 2.  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 3.  Contemporary gender-specific outcomes in Germany after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer.

Authors:  Marianne Schmid; Shahrokh F Shariat; Armin Soave; Oliver Engel; Margit Fisch; Michael Rink
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 3.092

4.  Accurate determination of the pathological stage with gross dissection protocol for radical cystectomy.

Authors:  Farkas Sükösd; Béla Iványi; László Pajor
Journal:  Pathol Oncol Res       Date:  2014-02-23       Impact factor: 3.201

5.  Prediction models in cancer care.

Authors:  Andrew J Vickers
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2011-06-23       Impact factor: 508.702

Review 6.  Predictive tools for clinical decision-making and counseling of patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma.

Authors:  Evanguelos Xylinas; Luis Kluth; Sibani Mangal; Morgan Roupret; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Shahrokh F Shariat
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2012-09-18       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  Who should be included in a clinical trial of screening for bladder cancer?: a decision analysis of data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial.

Authors:  Andrew J Vickers; Caroline Bennette; Adam S Kibel; Amanda Black; Grant Izmirlian; Andrew J Stephenson; Bernard Bochner
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2012-06-26       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 8.  Statistical consideration for clinical biomarker research in bladder cancer.

Authors:  Shahrokh F Shariat; Yair Lotan; Andrew Vickers; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Bernd J Schmitz-Dräger; Peter J Goebell; Nuria Malats
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2010 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.498

Review 9.  A systematic review of the tools available for predicting survival and managing patients with urothelial carcinomas of the bladder and of the upper tract in a curative setting.

Authors:  Sarah J Drouin; David R Yates; Vincent Hupertan; Olivier Cussenot; Morgan Rouprêt
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2012-12-18       Impact factor: 4.226

10.  Risk stratification of pT1-3N0 patients after radical cystectomy for adjuvant chemotherapy counselling.

Authors:  E Xylinas; E K Cha; M Sun; M Rink; Q-D Trinh; G Novara; D A Green; A Pycha; Y Fradet; S Daneshmand; R S Svatek; H-M Fritsche; W Kassouf; D S Scherr; T Faison; J J Crivelli; S T Tagawa; M Zerbib; P I Karakiewicz; S F Shariat
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2012-11-20       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.