Sarah J Drouin1, David R Yates, Vincent Hupertan, Olivier Cussenot, Morgan Rouprêt. 1. Academic Department of Urology of la Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, 1 Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Faculté de Médecine Pierre et Marie Curie, University Paris VI, Hôpital Pitié, 47-83 bvd de l'Hôpital, 75013, Paris, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To identify the predictive tools which have emerged recently in the field of urothelial carcinomas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a thorough MEDLINE literature review using a combination of the following keywords: urothelial carcinoma, transitional cell carcinoma, bladder, renal pelvis, ureter, predictive tools, predictive models and nomograms. We found 117 articles, but only the relevant reports were selected. RESULTS: The majority of available tools are prediction models, particularly nomograms. These models combine good performance accuracy with ease of use. They appear to be more accurate than risk grouping or tree modeling and are more suitable for clinicians than artificial intelligence. The most recent nomograms have been designed to be used in daily clinical practice and are even available as computer or smartphone applications. They focus on pathological outcomes or more frequently on survival statistics or recurrence risk after surgery. They provide an accurate prediction of disease evolution and may help clinicians to choose the most appropriate treatment option. However, these prediction tools still need to be validated and regularly utilized. CONCLUSION: Predictive tools represent very helpful clinical decision-making aids but need to be validated in larger populations.
OBJECTIVES: To identify the predictive tools which have emerged recently in the field of urothelial carcinomas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a thorough MEDLINE literature review using a combination of the following keywords: urothelial carcinoma, transitional cell carcinoma, bladder, renal pelvis, ureter, predictive tools, predictive models and nomograms. We found 117 articles, but only the relevant reports were selected. RESULTS: The majority of available tools are prediction models, particularly nomograms. These models combine good performance accuracy with ease of use. They appear to be more accurate than risk grouping or tree modeling and are more suitable for clinicians than artificial intelligence. The most recent nomograms have been designed to be used in daily clinical practice and are even available as computer or smartphone applications. They focus on pathological outcomes or more frequently on survival statistics or recurrence risk after surgery. They provide an accurate prediction of disease evolution and may help clinicians to choose the most appropriate treatment option. However, these prediction tools still need to be validated and regularly utilized. CONCLUSION: Predictive tools represent very helpful clinical decision-making aids but need to be validated in larger populations.
Authors: Ricardo L Favaretto; Shahrokh F Shariat; Caroline Savage; Guilherme Godoy; Daher C Chade; Matthew Kaag; Bernard H Bochner; Jonathan Coleman; Guido Dalbagni Journal: BJU Int Date: 2011-06-01 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Pierre I Karakiewicz; Shahrokh F Shariat; Ganesh S Palapattu; Paul Perrotte; Yair Lotan; Craig G Rogers; Gilad E Amiel; Amnon Vazina; Amit Gupta; Patrick J Bastian; Arthur I Sagalowsky; Mark Schoenberg; Seth P Lerner Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2006-06-23 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Jennifer M Taylor; Andrew Feifer; Caroline J Savage; Alexandra C Maschino; Melanie Bernstein; Harry W Herr; S Machele Donat Journal: BJU Int Date: 2011-07-01 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Jamie C Messer; John D Terrell; Michael P Herman; Casey K Ng; Douglas S Scherr; Benjamin Scoll; Stephen A Boorjian; Robert G Uzzo; Mark Wille; Scott E Eggener; Steven M Lucas; Yair Lotan; Shahrokh F Shariat; Jay D Raman Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2011-09-09 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Markus Riester; Jennifer M Taylor; Andrew Feifer; Theresa Koppie; Jonathan E Rosenberg; Robert J Downey; Bernard H Bochner; Franziska Michor Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2012-01-06 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Shahrokh F Shariat; Thomas F Chromecki; Eugene K Cha; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Maxine Sun; Yves Fradet; Hendrik Isbarn; Douglas S Scherr; Patrick J Bastian; Karl Pummer; Harun Fajkovic; Arthur I Sagalowsky; Raheela Ashfaq; Matthias Doblinger; Richard J Cote; Yair Lotan Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-12-15 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: D R Yates; V Hupertan; P Colin; A Ouzzane; A Descazeaud; J A Long; G Pignot; S Crouzet; F Rozet; Y Neuzillet; M Soulie; T Bodin; A Valeri; O Cussenot; M Rouprêt Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2012-02-28 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Alexandra Masson-Lecomte; Pierre Colin; Gregory Bozzini; Laurent Nison; Alexandre de La Taille; Eva Comperat; Marc Zerbib; François Rozet; Xavier Cathelineau; Antoine Valeri; Alain Ruffion; Laurent Guy; Stéphane Droupy; Olivier Cussenot; Morgan Rouprêt Journal: World J Urol Date: 2013-08-02 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: O Dalpiaz; M Pichler; S Mannweiler; J M Martín Hernández; T Stojakovic; K Pummer; R Zigeuner; G C Hutterer Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2014-04-01 Impact factor: 7.640