L W van Bockel1, E M Monninkhof, F A Pameijer, C H J Terhaard. 1. Department of radiation oncology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, HP Q00.118, Postbus 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands, l.w.vanbockel@umcutrecht.nl.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of our study was to assess the prognostic value of tumor volume compared to and in addition to T-stage on local control (LC), disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) in glottic and supraglottic laryngeal carcinoma patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In 150 patients, we determined tumor volume on diagnostic CT scans. We applied crude and multivariable Cox regression analysis to relate volume (continuous), T-stage and the combination to 5-year DFS, OS, and LC. Before, we examined the linearity assumption of the association between volume and outcome with restricted cubic spline functions. Prognostic performance of the models was examined by determination of the model's discrimination. Discriminative ability was determined with the C statistic referring to the ability to discriminate between patients who do and do not develop an event during follow-up. RESULTS: A strong association between tumor volume and DFS and OS was found. The restricted cubic spline plot did not indicate a non-linear relationship between tumor volume and DFS and local control. Tumor volume demonstrated a better discriminative ability to predict DFS and OS compared to T-stage (0.68 and 0.57 vs. 0.59 and 0.54, respectively). For local control, T-stage showed a higher discriminative ability than tumor volume (0.63 vs. 0.61). The combined model increased discriminative power (0.69). CONCLUSION: Volume seems to be more important than T-stage in prediction of DFS or OS in laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma patients. Perhaps prediction of DFS, OS, and LC could be improved by including tumor volume into the staging process.
PURPOSE: The aim of our study was to assess the prognostic value of tumor volume compared to and in addition to T-stage on local control (LC), disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) in glottic and supraglottic laryngeal carcinomapatients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In 150 patients, we determined tumor volume on diagnostic CT scans. We applied crude and multivariable Cox regression analysis to relate volume (continuous), T-stage and the combination to 5-year DFS, OS, and LC. Before, we examined the linearity assumption of the association between volume and outcome with restricted cubic spline functions. Prognostic performance of the models was examined by determination of the model's discrimination. Discriminative ability was determined with the C statistic referring to the ability to discriminate between patients who do and do not develop an event during follow-up. RESULTS: A strong association between tumor volume and DFS and OS was found. The restricted cubic spline plot did not indicate a non-linear relationship between tumor volume and DFS and local control. Tumor volume demonstrated a better discriminative ability to predict DFS and OS compared to T-stage (0.68 and 0.57 vs. 0.59 and 0.54, respectively). For local control, T-stage showed a higher discriminative ability than tumor volume (0.63 vs. 0.61). The combined model increased discriminative power (0.69). CONCLUSION: Volume seems to be more important than T-stage in prediction of DFS or OS in laryngeal squamous cell carcinomapatients. Perhaps prediction of DFS, OS, and LC could be improved by including tumor volume into the staging process.
Authors: Joost L Knegjens; Michael Hauptmann; Frank A Pameijer; Alfons J Balm; Frank J Hoebers; Josien A de Bois; Johannes H Kaanders; Carla M van Herpen; Cornelia G Verhoef; Oda B Wijers; Ruud G Wiggenraad; Jan Buter; Coen R Rasch Journal: Head Neck Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: J Bourhis; R Dendale; C Hill; J Bosq; F Janot; P Attal; A Fortin; P Marandas; G Schwaab; P Wibault; E P Malaise; S Bobin; B Luboinski; F Eschwege; G Wilson Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1996-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jay S Cooper; Suresh K Mukherji; Alicia Y Toledano; Clifford Beldon; Ilona M Schmalfuss; Robert Amdur; Scott Sailer; Laurie A Loevner; Phil Kousouboris; K Kian Ang; Jean Cormack; JoRean Sicks Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-01-08 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: R Murakami; M Furusawa; Y Baba; R Nishimura; F Katsura; M Eura; K Masuyama; M Takahashi Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Geert O Janssens; Saskia E Rademakers; Chris H Terhaard; Patricia A Doornaert; Hendrik P Bijl; Piet van den Ende; Alim Chin; Henri A Marres; Remco de Bree; Albert J van der Kogel; Ilse J Hoogsteen; Johannes Bussink; Paul N Span; Johannes H Kaanders Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-04-16 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Eduardo De Stefani; Paolo Boffetta; Hugo Deneo-Pellegrini; Paul Brennan; Pelayo Correa; Fernando Oreggia; Alvaro L Ronco; María Mendilaharsu Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2004-12-20 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Jay S Cooper; Kim Porter; Katherine Mallin; Henry T Hoffman; Randal S Weber; Kian K Ang; E Greer Gay; Corey J Langer Journal: Head Neck Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Mona Kamal; Sweet Ping Ng; Salman A Eraj; Crosby D Rock; Brian Pham; Jay A Messer; Adam S Garden; William H Morrison; Jack Phan; Steven J Frank; Adel K El-Naggar; Jason M Johnson; Lawrence E Ginsberg; Renata Ferrarotto; Jan S Lewin; Katherine A Hutcheson; Carlos E Cardenas; Mark E Zafereo; Stephen Y Lai; Amy C Hessel; Randal S Weber; G Brandon Gunn; Clifton D Fuller; Abdallah S R Mohamed; David I Rosenthal Journal: Oral Oncol Date: 2018-02-10 Impact factor: 5.337
Authors: Jay C Shiao; Abdallah S R Mohamed; Jay A Messer; Katherine A Hutcheson; Jason M Johnson; Heiko Enderling; Mona Kamal; Benjamin W Warren; Brian Pham; William H Morrison; Mark E Zafereo; Amy C Hessel; Stephen Y Lai; Merril S Kies; Renata Ferrarotto; Adam S Garden; Donald F Schomer; G Brandon Gunn; Jack Phan; Steven J Frank; Beth M Beadle; Randal S Weber; Jan S Lewin; David I Rosenthal; Clifton D Fuller Journal: Head Neck Date: 2017-05-02 Impact factor: 3.147