Literature DB >> 21630294

Use of tumor dynamics to clarify the observed variability among biochemical recurrence nomograms for prostate cancer.

Guy Dimonte1, E J Bergstralh, M E Bolander, R J Karnes, D J Tindall.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Nomograms for biochemical recurrence (BCR) of prostate cancer (PC) after radical prostatectomy can yield very different prognoses for individual patients. Since the nomograms are optimized on different cohorts, the variations may be due to differences in patient risk-factor distributions. In addition, the nomograms assign different relative scores to the same PC risk factors and rarely stratify for tumor growth rate.
METHODS: We compared BCR-free probabilities from the GPSM model with a cell kinetics (CK) model that uses the individual's tumor state and growth rate. We first created a cohort of 143 patients that reproduced the GPSM patient distribution in Gleason score, Prostate specific antigen (PSA), Seminal vesicle involvement and Margin status since they form the GPSM score. We then performed 143 CK calculations to determine BCR-free probabilities for comparison with the GPSM results for all scores and with four other prominent nomograms for a high-risk patient.
RESULTS: The BCR-free probabilities from the CK model agree within 10% with those from the GPSM study for all scores once the CK model parameters are stratified in terms of the GPSM risk factors and the PSA doubling time (PSADT). However, the probabilities from widely used nomograms vary significantly.
CONCLUSIONS: The CK model reproduces the observed GPSM BCR-free probabilities with a broad stratification of model parameters for PC risk factors and can thus be used to describe PC progression for individual patients. The analysis suggests that nomograms should stratify for PSADT to be predictive.
Copyright © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21630294      PMCID: PMC3188696          DOI: 10.1002/pros.21429

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prostate        ISSN: 0270-4137            Impact factor:   4.104


  14 in total

1.  A cell kinetics model for prostate cancer and its application to clinical data and individual patients.

Authors:  Guy Dimonte
Journal:  J Theor Biol       Date:  2010-02-20       Impact factor: 2.691

2.  Is the GPSM scoring algorithm for patients with prostate cancer valid in the contemporary era?

Authors:  R Houston Thompson; Michael L Blute; Jeffrey M Slezak; Eric J Bergstralh; Bradley C Leibovich
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2007-06-11       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  The University of California, San Francisco Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score: a straightforward and reliable preoperative predictor of disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Matthew R Cooperberg; David J Pasta; Eric P Elkin; Mark S Litwin; David M Latini; Janeen Du Chane; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  Head-to-head comparison of the three most commonly used preoperative models for prediction of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Giovanni Lughezzani; Lars Budäus; Hendrik Isbarn; Maxine Sun; Paul Perrotte; Alexander Haese; Felix K Chun; Thorsten Schlomm; Thomas Steuber; Hans Heinzer; Hartwig Huland; Francesco Montorsi; Markus Graefen; Pierre I Karakiewicz
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2009-12-10       Impact factor: 20.096

5.  Staging of early prostate cancer: a proposed tumor volume-based prognostic index.

Authors:  D G Bostwick; S D Graham; P Napalkov; P A Abrahamsson; P A di Sant'agnese; F Algaba; P A Hoisaeter; F Lee; P Littrup; F K Mostofi
Journal:  Urology       Date:  1993-05       Impact factor: 2.649

6.  Cancer metabolism and the dynamics of metastasis.

Authors:  G Dattoli; C Guiot; P P Delsanto; P L Ottaviani; S Pagnutti; T S Deisboeck
Journal:  J Theor Biol       Date:  2008-10-21       Impact factor: 2.691

7.  A contemporary prognostic nomogram for men with hormone-refractory metastatic prostate cancer: a TAX327 study analysis.

Authors:  Andrew J Armstrong; Elizabeth S Garrett-Mayer; Yi-Chun Ou Yang; Ronald de Wit; Ian F Tannock; Mario Eisenberger
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2007-11-01       Impact factor: 12.531

8.  Biochemical (prostate specific antigen) recurrence probability following radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Misop Han; Alan W Partin; Marianna Zahurak; Steven Piantadosi; Johnathan I Epstein; Patrick C Walsh
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  A V D'Amico; R Whittington; S B Malkowicz; D Schultz; K Blank; G A Broderick; J E Tomaszewski; A A Renshaw; I Kaplan; C J Beard; A Wein
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1998-09-16       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Surrogate end point for prostate cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy.

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

View more
  1 in total

1.  Predictive value of Prostate Specific Antigen variations in the last week of salvage radiotherapy for biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer after surgery: A practical approach.

Authors:  Riccardo Vigna-Taglianti; Alberto Boriano; Luca Gianello; Antonella Melano; Fabrizio Bergesio; Anna Maria Merlotti; Alessia Reali; Rachele Petrucci; Elvio G Russi
Journal:  Cancer Rep (Hoboken)       Date:  2020-09-03
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.