Andres F Correa1, Opeyemi A Jegede2, Naomi B Haas3, Keith T Flaherty4, Michael R Pins5, Adebowale Adeniran6, Edward M Messing7, Judith Manola2, Christopher G Wood8, Christopher J Kane9, Michael A S Jewett10, Janice P Dutcher11, Robert S DiPaola12, Michael A Carducci13, Robert G Uzzo14. 1. Department of Surgical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Electronic address: Andres.Correa@fccc.edu. 2. ECOG-ACRIN Biostatistics Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Abramson Cancer Center of University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 4. Henri and Belinda Termeer Center for Targeted Therapy, Cancer Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, IL, USA. 6. Yale New Haven Hospital, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA. 7. Department of Urology, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA. 8. M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, University of Texas, Houston, TX, USA. 9. Moores Cancer Center, University of California-San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA. 10. Departments of Surgery (Urology) and Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network and University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. 11. Cancer Research Foundation, New York, NY, USA. 12. Dean's Office, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, KY, USA. 13. Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA. 14. Department of Surgical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Risk stratification for localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) relies heavily on retrospective models, limiting their generalizability to contemporary cohorts. OBJECTIVE: To introduce a contemporary RCC prognostic model, developed using prospective, highly annotated data from a phase III adjuvant trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The model utilizes outcome data from the ECOG-ACRIN 2805 (ASSURE) RCC trial. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome for the model is disease-free survival (DFS), with overall survival (OS) and early disease progression (EDP) as secondary outcomes. Model performance was assessed using discrimination and calibration tests. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 1735 patients were included in the analysis, with 887 DFS events occurring over a median follow-up of 9.6 yr. Five common tumor variables (histology, size, grade, tumor necrosis, and nodal involvement) were included in each model. Tumor histology was the single most powerful predictor for each model outcome. The C-statistics at 1 yr were 78.4% and 81.9% for DFS and OS, respectively. Degradation of the DFS, DFS validation set, and OS model's discriminatory ability was seen over time, with a global c-index of 68.0% (95% confidence interval or CI [65.5, 70.4]), 68.6% [65.1%, 72.2%], and 69.4% (95% CI [66.9%, 71.9%], respectively. The EDP model had a c-index of 75.1% (95% CI [71.3, 79.0]). CONCLUSIONS: We introduce a contemporary RCC recurrence model built and internally validated using prospective and highly annotated data from a clinical trial. Performance characteristics of the current model exceed available prognostic models with the added benefit of being histology inclusive and TNM agnostic. PATIENT SUMMARY: Important decisions, including treatment protocols, clinical trial eligibility, and life planning, rest on our ability to predict cancer outcomes accurately. Here, we introduce a contemporary renal cell carcinoma prognostic model leveraging high-quality data from a clinical trial. The current model predicts three outcome measures commonly utilized in clinical practice and exceeds the predictive ability of available prognostic models.
BACKGROUND: Risk stratification for localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) relies heavily on retrospective models, limiting their generalizability to contemporary cohorts. OBJECTIVE: To introduce a contemporary RCC prognostic model, developed using prospective, highly annotated data from a phase III adjuvant trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The model utilizes outcome data from the ECOG-ACRIN 2805 (ASSURE) RCC trial. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome for the model is disease-free survival (DFS), with overall survival (OS) and early disease progression (EDP) as secondary outcomes. Model performance was assessed using discrimination and calibration tests. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 1735 patients were included in the analysis, with 887 DFS events occurring over a median follow-up of 9.6 yr. Five common tumor variables (histology, size, grade, tumor necrosis, and nodal involvement) were included in each model. Tumor histology was the single most powerful predictor for each model outcome. The C-statistics at 1 yr were 78.4% and 81.9% for DFS and OS, respectively. Degradation of the DFS, DFS validation set, and OS model's discriminatory ability was seen over time, with a global c-index of 68.0% (95% confidence interval or CI [65.5, 70.4]), 68.6% [65.1%, 72.2%], and 69.4% (95% CI [66.9%, 71.9%], respectively. The EDP model had a c-index of 75.1% (95% CI [71.3, 79.0]). CONCLUSIONS: We introduce a contemporary RCC recurrence model built and internally validated using prospective and highly annotated data from a clinical trial. Performance characteristics of the current model exceed available prognostic models with the added benefit of being histology inclusive and TNM agnostic. PATIENT SUMMARY: Important decisions, including treatment protocols, clinical trial eligibility, and life planning, rest on our ability to predict cancer outcomes accurately. Here, we introduce a contemporary renal cell carcinoma prognostic model leveraging high-quality data from a clinical trial. The current model predicts three outcome measures commonly utilized in clinical practice and exceeds the predictive ability of available prognostic models.
Authors: Maximiliano Sorbellini; Michael W Kattan; Mark E Snyder; Victor Reuter; Robert Motzer; Manlio Goetzl; James McKiernan; Paul Russo Journal: J Urol Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Suzanne B Stewart; R Houston Thompson; Sarah P Psutka; John C Cheville; Christine M Lohse; Stephen A Boorjian; Bradley C Leibovich Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-11-17 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Igor Frank; Michael L Blute; John C Cheville; Christine M Lohse; Amy L Weaver; Horst Zincke Journal: J Urol Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: L Cindolo; A de la Taille; G Messina; L Romis; C C Abbou; V Altieri; A Rodriguez; J J Patard Journal: BJU Int Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Naomi B Haas; Judith Manola; Robert G Uzzo; Keith T Flaherty; Christopher G Wood; Christopher Kane; Michael Jewett; Janice P Dutcher; Michael B Atkins; Michael Pins; George Wilding; David Cella; Lynne Wagner; Surena Matin; Timothy M Kuzel; Wade J Sexton; Yu-Ning Wong; Toni K Choueiri; Roberto Pili; Igor Puzanov; Manish Kohli; Walter Stadler; Michael Carducci; Robert Coomes; Robert S DiPaola Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-03-09 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Łukasz Zapała; Aleksander Ślusarczyk; Rafał Wolański; Paweł Kurzyna; Karolina Garbas; Piotr Zapała; Piotr Radziszewski Journal: Biomedicines Date: 2022-05-23
Authors: Zine-Eddine Khene; Alessandro Larcher; Jean-Christophe Bernhard; Nicolas Doumerc; Idir Ouzaid; Umberto Capitanio; François-Xavier Nouhaud; Romain Boissier; Nathalie Rioux-Leclercq; Alexandre De La Taille; Philippe Barthelemy; Francesco Montorsi; Morgan Rouprêt; Pierre Bigot; Karim Bensalah Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2021-10-05