Literature DB >> 21771247

Postoperative systems models more accurately predict risk of significant disease progression than standard risk groups and a 10-year postoperative nomogram: potential impact on the receipt of adjuvant therapy after surgery.

Michael J Donovan1, Faisal M Khan, Douglas Powell, Valentina Bayer-Zubek, Carlos Cordon-Cardo, Jose Costa, James Eastham, Peter Scardino.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of a systems-based risk assessment tool with standard defined risk groups and the 10-year postoperative nomogram for predicting disease progression, including biochemical relapse and clinical (systemic) failure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Clinical variables, biometric profiles and outcome results from a training cohort comprising 373 patients in a published postoperative systems-based prognostic model were obtained. Patients were stratified according to D'Amico standard risk groups, Kattan 10-year postoperative nomogram and prognostic scores from the postoperative tissue model. The association of pathological variables and calculated risk groups with biochemical recurrence and clinical (systemic) failure was assessed using the concordance index (C-index) and hazard ratio (HR).
RESULTS: Systems-based post-prostatectomy models to predict significant disease progression (post-treatment clinical failure) were more accurate than the D'Amico defined risk groups and the Kattan 10-year postoperative nomogram (systems model: C-index, 0.84; HR, 17.46; P < 0.001 vs D'Amico: C-index, 0.73; HR, 11; P = 0.001; 10-year nomogram: C-index, 0.79; HR, 5.06; P < 0.001). The systems models were also more accurate than standard risk groups for predicting prostate-specific antigen recurrence (systems model: C-index, 0.76; HR, 8.94; P < 0.001 vs D'Amico C- index, 0.70; HR, 4.67; P < 0.001) and showed incremental improvement over the 10-year postoperative nomogram (C-index, 0.75; HR, 5.83; P < 0.001). The postoperative tissue model provided additional risk discrimination over surgical margin status and extracapsular extension for predicting disease outcome, and was most significant for the clinical (systemic) failure endpoint (surgical margin: C-index, 0.58; HR, 1.57; P= 0.2; extracapsular extension: C-index, 0.62; HR, 2.06; P = 0.04).
CONCLUSIONS: Risk assessment models that incorporate characteristics from the patient's own tumour specimen are more accurate than clinical-only nomograms for predicting significant disease outcome. Systems-based tools should provide useful information concerning the appropriate receipt of adjuvant therapy in the post-surgical setting.
© 2011 THE AUTHORS. BJU INTERNATIONAL © 2011 BJU INTERNATIONAL.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21771247      PMCID: PMC4035101          DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10398.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJU Int        ISSN: 1464-4096            Impact factor:   5.588


  22 in total

1.  Prognostic impact of positive surgical margins in surgically treated prostate cancer: multi-institutional assessment of 5831 patients.

Authors:  Pierre I Karakiewicz; James A Eastham; Markus Graefen; Ilias Cagiannos; Phillip D Stricker; Eric Klein; Thomas Cangiano; Fritz H Schröder; Peter T Scardino; Michael W Kattan
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 2.649

2.  Overall survival benefit from postoperative radiation therapy for organ-confined, margin-positive prostate cancer.

Authors:  Robert O Dillman; Russell Hafer; Craig Cox; Stephanie E McClure
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2010-05-14       Impact factor: 7.038

3.  Pretreatment nomogram for prostate-specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy or external-beam radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  A V D'Amico; R Whittington; S B Malkowicz; J Fondurulia; M H Chen; I Kaplan; C J Beard; J E Tomaszewski; A A Renshaw; A Wein; C N Coleman
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  The learning curve for surgical margins after open radical prostatectomy: implications for margin status as an oncological end point.

Authors:  Andrew Vickers; Fernando Bianco; Angel Cronin; James Eastham; Eric Klein; Michael Kattan; Peter Scardino
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2010-02-19       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy predict prostate cancer specific mortality.

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

6.  Early prostate-specific antigen relapse after radical retropubic prostatectomy: prediction on the basis of preoperative and postoperative tumor characteristics.

Authors:  M Graefen; J Noldus; U Pichlmeier; A Haese; P Hammerer; S Fernandez; S Conrad; R Henke; E Huland; H Huland
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 20.096

7.  Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate carcinoma in the prostate specific antigen era.

Authors:  Anthony V D'Amico; Richard Whittington; S Bruce Malkowicz; Kerri Cote; Marian Loffredo; Delray Schultz; Ming-Hui Chen; John E Tomaszewski; Andrew A Renshaw; Alan Wein; Jerome P Richie
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2002-07-15       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in localized prostate cancer: the Scandinavian prostate cancer group-4 randomized trial.

Authors:  Anna Bill-Axelson; Lars Holmberg; Frej Filén; Mirja Ruutu; Hans Garmo; Christer Busch; Stig Nordling; Michael Häggman; Swen-Olof Andersson; Stefan Bratell; Anders Spångberg; Juni Palmgren; Hans-Olov Adami; Jan-Erik Johansson
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2008-08-11       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  Nomogram predicting the probability of early recurrence after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Jochen Walz; Felix K-H Chun; Eric A Klein; Alwyn Reuther; Fred Saad; Markus Graefen; Hartwig Huland; Pierre I Karakiewicz
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2008-12-13       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Do margins matter? The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens.

Authors:  Peter Swindle; James A Eastham; Makoto Ohori; Michael W Kattan; Thomas Wheeler; Norio Maru; Kevin Slawin; Peter T Scardino
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 7.450

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.