| Literature DB >> 32216043 |
Mateusz Jobczyk1,2, Konrad Stawiski3, Wojciech Fendler3,4, Waldemar Różański1.
Abstract
BRIEF DESCRIPTION: The results demonstrate that the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) scale provides the best recurrence and progression prediction in comparison with European Association of Urology (EAU) and Club Urologico Espanol de Tratamiento Oncologico (CUETO) risk scores among a mixed population of patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder who were treated with, or without, Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) and without any immediate postoperative chemotherapy. The study highlights the role of tumor diameter and extent in transition prediction. This retrospective cohort analysis of 322 patients with newly diagnosed non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) assesses the concordance and accuracy of predicting recurrence and progression by EAU-recommended tools (EAU risk groups, EORTC, and CUETO). One-year and five-year c-indices ranged from 0.55 to 0.66 for recurrence and from 0.72 to 0.82 for progression. AUCROC of predictions ranged from 0.46 for 1-year recurrence risk based on CUETO groups, to 0.82 for 1-year progression risk based on EAU risk groups. Diameter (HR: 1.91; 95% CI: 1.39-2.61) and tumor extent (HR: 1.21; 95% CI: 1.01-1.46 for recurrence; HR: 3.1; 95% CI: 1.40-6.87 for progression) were shown to be significant predictors in multistate analysis. Lower accuracy of prediction was observed for patients treated with BCG maintenance immunotherapy. The EORTC model (overall c-index c = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.61-0.68) was superior to the EAU (P = .035; .62; 95% CI: 0.59-0.66) and CUETO (P < .001; c = 0.53; 95% CI: 0.50-0.56) models in predicting recurrence. The EORTC model (c = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.77-0.86) also performed better than CUETO (P = .008; c = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.66-0.81) but there was no sufficient evidence that it performed better than EAU (P = .572; c = 0.81; 95% CI: 0.77-0.84) for predicting progression. EORTC and CUETO gave similar predictions for progression in BCG-treated EAU high-risk patients (P = .48). We share anonymized individual patient data. In conclusion, despite moderate accuracy, EORTC provided the best recurrence and progression prediction for a mixed population of patients treated with, or without BCG, and without immediate postoperative chemotherapy.Entities:
Keywords: bladder cancer; non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer; prediction; risk stratification; systematic review
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32216043 PMCID: PMC7286464 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.3007
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Med ISSN: 2045-7634 Impact factor: 4.452
Group description
| Feature | Details | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predictors | ||||
| Gender | Males: 74% (N = 237) | Females: 26% (N = 85) | ||
| EAU risk group | Low: 37% (N = 119) | Medium: 26% (N = 83) | High: 37% (N = 120) | |
| Age | Mean: 67.27 ± 11.14 years, Median: 68 years | |||
| Smoking | Nonsmokers: 70% (N = 224) | Smokers: 30% (N = 98) | ||
| T stage: | Ta: 63% (N = 203) | Tis: 3% (N = 9) | T1: 34% (N = 110) | |
| Grading | G1: 54% (N = 174) | G2: 35% (N = 113) | G3: 11% (N = 35) | |
| Number of tumors | Multiple: 36% (N = 115) | Single: 64% (N = 207) | ||
| Diameter | Less than 3 cm: 70% (N = 226) | 3 or more cm: 30% (N = 96) | ||
| Outcomes | ||||
| BCG treated | Yes: 29% (N = 92) | No: 71% (N = 230) | ||
| EORTC recurrence risk group | 1‐year 15%/5‐year 31% risk: 31% (N = 100) | 1‐year 24%/5‐year 26% risk: 37% (N = 119) | 1‐year 38%/5‐year 62% risk: 32% (N = 102) | 1‐year 61%/5‐year 78% risk: ~0% (N = 1) |
| EORTC progression risk group | 1‐year 0.2%/5‐year 0.8% risk: 39% (N = 125) | 1‐year 1%/5‐year 6% risk: 30% (N = 95) | 1‐year 17%/5‐year 45% risk: 4% (N = 14) | 1‐year 5%/5‐year 17% risk: 27% (N = 88) |
| CUETO recurrence risk group | 1‐year 8.2%/5‐year 21% risk: 76% (N = 244) | 1‐year 12%/5‐year 36% risk: 20% (N = 64) | 1‐year 25%/5‐year 48% risk: 4% (N = 12) | 1‐year 42%/5‐year 68% risk: 1% (N = 2) |
| CUETO progression risk group | 1‐year 1.2%/5‐year 3.7% risk: 77% (N = 247) | 1‐year 3%/5‐year 12% risk: 16% (N = 50) | 1‐year 5.5%/5‐year 21% risk: 8% (N = 25) | 1‐year 14%/5‐year 34% risk: 0% (N = 0) |
The table presents the general percentages of patients with partnonicular features, providing also the number of patients (N) with particular characteristics in our cohort.
Figure 1Overall survival of patients with diagnosed non–muscle‐invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). Panel A represents the Kaplan‐Meier curve of overall survival in study group with its 95% confidence interval marked as dashed lines. Panel B presents the difference in proportion of patients dying after progression or recurrence and from other or uncertain causes in competing risk survival model. Panel C presents the overall c‐index values for recurrence and progression prediction using selected scoring models with their 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Presented P‐values represent the difference between c‐index calculated using one‐sample weighted student's t tests. Panel D represents the significant risk factors for transition from particular states in multistate Cox‐Markov survival model
Risk factors of NMIBC recurrence, progression, and death in univariate Cox regression analysis
| Factors present at the time of first TURBT procedure: | Univariate analysis | Used by | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RFS | PFS | OS | EORTC | CUETO | EAU | |||||||
| HR | 95% CI |
| HR | 95% CI |
| HR | 95% CI |
| ||||
| Males vs | 1.12 | 0.82‐1.53 | .47 | 1.45 | 067‐3.15 | .35 | 1.33 | 0.81‐2.172 | .26 | No | Yes | No |
| Age at diagnosis (increase by 1) | 1.01 | 0.99‐1.02 | .42 | 1.04 | 1.01‐1.1 | .01 | 1.08 | 1.05‐1.1 | <.01 | No | Yes | No |
| Nonsmokers vs | 0.81 | 0.6‐1.1 | .17 | 0.95 | 0.48‐1.86 | .88 | 0.66 | 0.41‐1.05 | .08 | No | No | No |
| Tis vs | 1.38 | 0.61‐3.13 | .45 | 8.76 | 0.91‐84.35 | .06 | 2.63 | 0.63‐10.92 | .18 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| T1 vs | 2.11 | 1.59‐2.8 | <.01 | 26.92 | 8.29‐87.48 | <.01 | 2.13 | 1.43‐3.18 | <.01 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| G2 vs | 1.47 | 1.09‐1.99 | <.01 | 8.74 | 3.32‐23.03 | <.01 | 2.34 | 1.52‐3.6 | <.01 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| G3 vs | 2.54 | 1.69‐3.84 | <.01 | 15.45 | 5.3‐45.03 | <.01 | 2.75 | 1.5‐5.05 | <.01 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Multiple vs | 1.7 | 1.28‐2.24 | <.01 | 2.63 | 1.4‐4.92 | <.01 | 1.69 | 1.13‐2.52 | .01 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Diameter >3cm vs < | 2.15 | 1.61‐2.85 | <.01 | 3.12 | 1.68‐5.83 | <.01 | 1.25 | 0.82‐1.92 | .3 | Yes | No | Yes |
| Hematuria vs | 1.09 | 0.81‐1.47 | .55 | 2.30 | 1.02‐5.19 | <.05 | 1.96 | 1.22‐3.14 | <.01 | No | No | No |
Underlined feature is considered as a reference in HR computation.
Abbreviations: 95% CI, 95% confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression‐free survival; RFS, recurrence‐free survival.
Figure 2Cumulate incidence plots of recurrence and progression among patients in specific risk strata. Percent values are given to describe the plots in panels A‐D are given for expected incidence of 1‐ and 5‐year recurrence or progression rates. Panel E and F represent the utility of EAU risk groups as described in guidelines. Cumulative incidence of death (competing risk) in subgroups as well as risk groups of 3 or fewer patients were discarded to enhance readability. R1—EORTC 1‐year 15% and 5‐year 31% risk of recurrence, R2—EORTC 1‐year 24% and 5‐year 46% risk of recurrence, R3—EORTC 1‐year 38% and 5‐year 62% risk of recurrence, R4—CUETO 1‐year 8.2% and 5‐year 21% risk of recurrence, R5—CUETO 1‐year 12% and 5‐year 36% risk of recurrence, R6—CUETO 1‐year 25% and 5‐year 48% risk of recurrence, P1—EORTC 1‐year 0.2% and 5‐year 0.8% risk of recurrence, P2—EORTC 1‐year 1% and 5‐year 6% risk of recurrence, P3—EORTC 1‐year 5% and 5‐year 17% risk of recurrence, P4—EORTC 1‐year 17% and 5‐year 45% risk of recurrence, P5—CUETO 1‐year 1.2% and 5‐year 3.7% risk of recurrence, P6—CUETO 1‐year 3% and 5‐year 12% risk of recurrence, P7—CUETO 1‐year 5.5% and 5‐year 21% risk of recurrence, LR—EAU low‐risk group, MR—EAU medium‐risk group, and HR—EAU high‐risk group
Concordance of EAU risk group stratification
| Recurrence | Progression | Survival | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | With BCG | Overall | With BCG | Overall | With BCG | |
| 1‐year c‐index | 0.639 | 0.560 | 0.811 | 0.696 | 0.815 | — |
| 5‐year c‐index | 0.631 | 0.540 | 0.785 | 0.635 | 0.651 | 0.608 |
The table provides Harrell's c‐index for right‐censored event times derived from Cox regression models developed for particular analysis.
Area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves shows moderate diagnostic utility of selected models
| EAU risk groups | CUETO score | CUETO risk groups | EORTC score | EORTC risk groups | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| This study | 1‐year RFS | 0.633 | 0.566 | 0.461 | 0.670 | 0.646 |
| 5‐year RFS | 0.652 | 0.539 | 0.484 | 0.693 | 0.678 | |
| Kılınç et al (2017) | — | — | — | 0.773 | ||
| Hernandez et al (2011) | — | — | — | 0.61 | ||
| Hernandez et al (2011)—5‐year RFS | — | — | — | 0.70 | ||
| Choi et al (2014) | 0.894 | — | 0.832 | — | ||
|
| ||||||
| This study | 1‐year PFS | 0.821 | 0.674 | 0.770 | 0.803 | 0.801 |
| 5‐year PFS | 0.805 | 0.664 | 0.728 | 0.802 | 0.788 | |
| Kılınç et al (2017)—5‐year PFS | — | — | — | 0.901 | ||
| Hernandez et al (2011)—1‐year PFS | — | — | — | 0.58 | ||
| Hernandez et al (2011)—5‐year PFS | — | — | — | 0.55 | ||
| Choi et al (2014)—5‐year PFS | 0.724 | — | 0.722 | — | ||
The sensitivity and specificity metrics were calculated for each point as a threshold. ROC curves for our subgroup were shown in Figure S1.
Concordance indices (c‐index) for application of EORTC and CUETO risk stratification models with results of systematic review
| EORTC | CUETO | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recurrence | Progression | Recurrence | Progression | ||||||
| Overall | With BCG | Overall | With BCG | Overall | With BCG | Overall | With BCG | ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Fernandez‐Gomez et al (2011) | Overall c‐index | 0.630 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Sylvester et al (2006) | 1‐year c‐index | 0.660 | — | 0.740 | — | — | — | — | — |
| 5‐year c‐index | 0.660 | — | 0.750 | — | — | — | — | — | |
| Fernandez‐Gomez et al (2009) | 1‐year c‐index | — | — | — | — | 0.636 | — | 0.687 | — |
| 5‐year c‐index | — | — | — | — | 0.644 | — | 0.700 | — | |
| Xylinas et al (2013) | Overall c‐index | 0.597 | 0.554 | 0.662 | 0.576 | 0.523 | 0.597 | 0.616 | 0.645 |
| Ravvaz et al (2017) | 1‐year c‐index | 0.630 | 0.570 | 0.790 | 0.710 | 0.590 | 0.560 | 0.790 | 0.640 |
| 5‐year c‐index | 0.590 | 0.530 | 0.740 | 0.690 | 0.560 | 0.570 | 0.720 | 0.610 | |
| Tianyuan et al (2013) | Overall c‐index | 0.711 | — | 0.768 | — | 0.663 | — | 0.741 | — |
| Dalkilic et al (2018) | 5‐year c‐index | 0.777 | 0.823 | 0.801 | 0.832 | 0.705 | 0.758 | 0.881 | 0.806 |
| Pillai et al (2011) | 1‐year c‐index | 0.620 | — | 0.650 | — | — | — | — | — |
| 5‐year c‐index | 0.630 | — | 0.670 | — | — | — | — | — | |
| Almeida et al (2015) | 1‐year c‐index | 0.700 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 5‐year c‐index | 0.720 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| Busato Junior et al (2015) | 1‐year c‐index | — | — | 0.860 | — | — | — | — | — |
| 5‐year c‐index | — | — | 0.780 | — | — | — | — | — | |
| Choi et al (2014) | Overall c‐index | 0.759 | — | 0.704 | — | 0.836 | — | 0.745 | — |
|
Vedder et al (2014)
| Overall c‐index | 0.590 | — | — | — | 0.590 | — | — | — |
|
Vedder et al (2014)
| Overall c‐index | 0.610 | — | — | — | 0.560 | — | — | — |
|
Vedder et al (2014)
| Overall c‐index | 0.550 | — | — | — | 0.580 | — | — | — |
| Mean c‐index (based on all reported c‐indices) | 0.652 ± 0.059 | 0.606 ± 0.099 | 0.753 ± 0.061 | 0.701 ± 0.075 | 0.615 ± 0.081 | 0.604 ± 0.070 | 0.736 ± 0.066 | 0.669 ± 0.079 | |
C‐index is given as a fraction with 1.0 indicating maximum concordance. The parameters not provided in the analyzed manuscripts were marked with em‐dashes.