Robert K Nam1, Raj Satkunavisam1, Joseph L Chin2, Jonathan Izawa2, John Trachtenberg3, Ricardo Rendon4, David Bell4, Rajiv Singal5, Christopher Sherman6, Linda Sugar6, Kevin Chagin7, Michael W Kattan7. 1. Division of Urology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 2. Division of Urology, Western University, London, ON, Canada. 3. Division of Urology, Princess Margaret Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 4. Department of Urology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada. 5. Division of Urology, Michael Garron Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada. 6. Department of Pathology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 7. Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, United States.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Current prostate cancer risk calculators are limited in impact because only a probability of having prostate cancer is provided. We developed the next generation of prostate cancer risk calculator that incorporates life expectancy in order to better evaluate prostate cancer risk in context to a patient's age and comorbidity. METHODS: We combined two cohorts to develop the new risk calculator. The first was 5638 subjects who all underwent a prostate biopsy for prostate cancer detection. The second was 979 men diagnosed with prostate cancer with long-term survival data. Two regression models were used to create multivariable nomograms and an online prostate cancer risk calculator was developed. RESULTS: Of the 5638 patients who underwent a prostate biopsy, 629 (11%) were diagnosed with aggressive prostate cancer (Gleason Score 7[4+3] or more). Of the 979 patients who underwent treatment for prostate cancer, the 10-year overall survival (OS) was 49.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 46.6-52.9). The first multivariable nomogram for cancer risk had a concordance index of 0.74 (95% CI 0.72, 0.76), and the second nomogram to predict survival had a concordance index of 0.71 (95% CI 0.69-0.72). The next-generation prostate cancer risk calculator was developed online and is available at: http://riskcalc.org/ProstateCA_Screen_Tool. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed the next-generation prostate cancer risk calculator that incorporates a patient's life expectancy based on age and comorbidity. This approach will better evaluate prostate cancer risk. Future studies examining other populations will be needed for validation.
INTRODUCTION: Current prostate cancer risk calculators are limited in impact because only a probability of having prostate cancer is provided. We developed the next generation of prostate cancer risk calculator that incorporates life expectancy in order to better evaluate prostate cancer risk in context to a patient's age and comorbidity. METHODS: We combined two cohorts to develop the new risk calculator. The first was 5638 subjects who all underwent a prostate biopsy for prostate cancer detection. The second was 979 men diagnosed with prostate cancer with long-term survival data. Two regression models were used to create multivariable nomograms and an online prostate cancer risk calculator was developed. RESULTS: Of the 5638 patients who underwent a prostate biopsy, 629 (11%) were diagnosed with aggressive prostate cancer (Gleason Score 7[4+3] or more). Of the 979 patients who underwent treatment for prostate cancer, the 10-year overall survival (OS) was 49.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 46.6-52.9). The first multivariable nomogram for cancer risk had a concordance index of 0.74 (95% CI 0.72, 0.76), and the second nomogram to predict survival had a concordance index of 0.71 (95% CI 0.69-0.72). The next-generation prostate cancer risk calculator was developed online and is available at: http://riskcalc.org/ProstateCA_Screen_Tool. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed the next-generation prostate cancer risk calculator that incorporates a patient's life expectancy based on age and comorbidity. This approach will better evaluate prostate cancer risk. Future studies examining other populations will be needed for validation.
Authors: Ian M Thompson; Donna Pauler Ankerst; Chen Chi; Phyllis J Goodman; Catherine M Tangen; M Scott Lucia; Ziding Feng; Howard L Parnes; Charles A Coltman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-04-19 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Ethan Basch; Thomas K Oliver; Andrew Vickers; Ian Thompson; Philip Kantoff; Howard Parnes; D Andrew Loblaw; Bruce Roth; James Williams; Robert K Nam Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-07-16 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Björn Löppenberg; Deepansh Dalela; Patrick Karabon; Akshay Sood; Jesse D Sammon; Christian P Meyer; Maxine Sun; Joachim Noldus; James O Peabody; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Mani Menon; Firas Abdollah Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-05-09 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Robert K Nam; Michael W Kattan; Joseph L Chin; John Trachtenberg; Rajiv Singal; Ricardo Rendon; Laurence H Klotz; Linda Sugar; Christopher Sherman; Jonathan Izawa; David Bell; Aleksandra Stanimirovic; Vasundara Venkateswaran; Eleftherios P Diamandis; Changhong Yu; D Andrew Loblaw; Steven A Narod Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-06-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Gerald L Andriole; E David Crawford; Robert L Grubb; Saundra S Buys; David Chia; Timothy R Church; Mona N Fouad; Edward P Gelmann; Paul A Kvale; Douglas J Reding; Joel L Weissfeld; Lance A Yokochi; Barbara O'Brien; Jonathan D Clapp; Joshua M Rathmell; Thomas L Riley; Richard B Hayes; Barnett S Kramer; Grant Izmirlian; Anthony B Miller; Paul F Pinsky; Philip C Prorok; John K Gohagan; Christine D Berg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-03-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Paolo Dell'Oglio; Hiba Abou-Haidar; Sami-Ramzi Leyh-Bannurah; Zhe Tian; Alessandro Larcher; Giorgio Gandaglia; Nicola Fossati; Shahrokh F Shariat; Umberto Capitanio; Alberto Briganti; Francesco Montorsi; Markus Graefen; Fred Saad; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-03-04 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Moniek M Vedder; Esther W de Bekker-Grob; Hans G Lilja; Andrew J Vickers; Geert J L H van Leenders; Ewout W Steyerberg; Monique J Roobol Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-08-26 Impact factor: 20.096