PURPOSE: Level 1 evidence supports the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for the treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), but observational data demonstrate that this approach is underused. A barrier to shared decision making is difficulty in predicting and communicating survival estimates after cystectomy with or without NAC. METHODS: We included patients with MIBC from the National Cancer Database treated with cystectomy. A state-transition model was constructed for calculating 5-year death risk using baseline patient-, tumor-, and facility-level variables. Internal-external cross-validation by geographic region was performed. The effect of NAC was integrated using a literature-derived hazard ratio. Bladder cancer-specific and other-cause mortality was estimated from all-cause mortality rates from US life tables. From the state-transition model, a Web-based tool was developed and pilot usability testing performed. RESULTS: A total of 9,824 patients with MIBC who underwent cystectomy were eligible for inclusion. Median overall survival was 39.6 months (95% CI, 37.4 to 42.4 months). Increasing age, higher clinical T stage, higher comorbidity index, and black race were associated with shorter survival. Private insurance, higher income, and cystectomy at a high-volume facility were associated with longer survival. The prediction model was well calibrated across geographic regions, with observed-to-predicted 5-year death risks ranging from 0.85 to 1.17. Absolute risk reductions with NAC varied from 8.6% to 10.1%. The Web-based tool allowed input of the predictor variables and a user-defined hazard ratio associated with the effect of NAC to generate individualized survival estimates. The tool demonstrated good usability with clinicians. CONCLUSION: A Web-based tool was developed to individualize outcome prediction and communication in patients with MIBC treated with cystectomy with or without NAC to facilitate shared decision making.
PURPOSE: Level 1 evidence supports the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for the treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), but observational data demonstrate that this approach is underused. A barrier to shared decision making is difficulty in predicting and communicating survival estimates after cystectomy with or without NAC. METHODS: We included patients with MIBC from the National Cancer Database treated with cystectomy. A state-transition model was constructed for calculating 5-year death risk using baseline patient-, tumor-, and facility-level variables. Internal-external cross-validation by geographic region was performed. The effect of NAC was integrated using a literature-derived hazard ratio. Bladder cancer-specific and other-cause mortality was estimated from all-cause mortality rates from US life tables. From the state-transition model, a Web-based tool was developed and pilot usability testing performed. RESULTS: A total of 9,824 patients with MIBC who underwent cystectomy were eligible for inclusion. Median overall survival was 39.6 months (95% CI, 37.4 to 42.4 months). Increasing age, higher clinical T stage, higher comorbidity index, and black race were associated with shorter survival. Private insurance, higher income, and cystectomy at a high-volume facility were associated with longer survival. The prediction model was well calibrated across geographic regions, with observed-to-predicted 5-year death risks ranging from 0.85 to 1.17. Absolute risk reductions with NAC varied from 8.6% to 10.1%. The Web-based tool allowed input of the predictor variables and a user-defined hazard ratio associated with the effect of NAC to generate individualized survival estimates. The tool demonstrated good usability with clinicians. CONCLUSION: A Web-based tool was developed to individualize outcome prediction and communication in patients with MIBC treated with cystectomy with or without NAC to facilitate shared decision making.
Authors: J P Stein; G Lieskovsky; R Cote; S Groshen; A C Feng; S Boyd; E Skinner; B Bochner; D Thangathurai; M Mikhail; D Raghavan; D G Skinner Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-02-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Andrea B Apolo; Joseph W Kim; Bernard H Bochner; Seth M Steinberg; Dean F Bajorin; Wm Kevin Kelly; Piyush K Agarwal; Theresa M Koppie; Matthew G Kaag; David I Quinn; Nicholas J Vogelzang; Srikala S Sridhar Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2014-05-16 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Francis M Patafio; William J Mackillop; Deb Feldman-Stewart; David Robert Siemens; Christopher M Booth Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2014-02-06 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Woonyoung Choi; Sima Porten; Seungchan Kim; Daniel Willis; Elizabeth R Plimack; Jean Hoffman-Censits; Beat Roth; Tiewei Cheng; Mai Tran; I-Ling Lee; Jonathan Melquist; Jolanta Bondaruk; Tadeusz Majewski; Shizhen Zhang; Shanna Pretzsch; Keith Baggerly; Arlene Siefker-Radtke; Bogdan Czerniak; Colin P N Dinney; David J McConkey Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2014-02-10 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: J Huber; P Karschuck; C Groeben; C Thomas; F Praus; A Miernik; C Gratzke; Georg W Alpers; M Kriegmair; M S Michel Journal: Urologe A Date: 2020-12-17 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Chana Weinstock; Matthew D Galsky; Elaine Chang; Andrea B Apolo; Rick Bangs; Stephanie Chisolm; Vinay Duddalwar; Jason A Efstathiou; Kirsten B Goldberg; Donna E Hansel; Ashish M Kamat; Paul G Kluetz; Seth P Lerner; Elizabeth Plimack; Tatiana Prowell; Harpreet Singh; Daniel Suzman; Evan Y Yu; Hui Zhang; Julia A Beaver; Richard Pazdur Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2021-09-10 Impact factor: 14.432