33
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Development and validation of a preoperative nomogram for predicting survival of patients with locally advanced prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          For selected locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) patients, radical prostatectomy (RP) is one of the first-line treatments. We aimed to develop a preoperative nomogram to identify what kinds of patients can get the most survival benefits after RP.

          Methods

          We conducted analyses with data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Covariates used for analyses included age at diagnosis, marital status, race, American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 7th TNM stage, Prostate specific antigen, Gleason biopsy score (GS), percent of positive cores. We estimated the cumulative incidence function for cause-specific death. The Fine and Gray’s proportional subdistribution hazard approach was used to perform multivariable competing risk analyses and reveal prognostic factors. A nomogram was built by these factors (including GS, percent of positive cores and N stage) and validated by concordance index and calibration curves . Risk stratification was established based on the nomogram.

          Results

          We studied 14,185 patients. N stage, GS, and percent of positive cores were the independent prognostic factors used to construct the nomogram. For validating, in the training cohort, the C-index was 0.779 (95% CI 0.736–0.822), and in the validation cohort, the C-index was 0.773 (95% CI 0.710–0.836). Calibration curves showed that the predicted survival and actual survival were very close. The nomogram performed better over the AJCC staging system (C-index 0.779 versus 0.764 for training cohort, and 0.773 versus 0.744 for validation cohort). The new stratification of risk groups based on the nomogram also showed better discrimination than the AJCC staging system.

          Conclusions

          The preoperative nomogram can provide favorable prognosis stratification ability to help clinicians identify patients who are suitable for surgery.

          Related collections

          Most cited references23

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Prostate Cancer, Version 2.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

          The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer include recommendations regarding diagnosis, risk stratification and workup, treatment options for localized disease, and management of recurrent and advanced disease for clinicians who treat patients with prostate cancer. The portions of the guidelines included herein focus on the roles of germline and somatic genetic testing, risk stratification with nomograms and tumor multigene molecular testing, androgen deprivation therapy, secondary hormonal therapy, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy in patients with prostate cancer.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Androgen suppression adjuvant to definitive radiotherapy in prostate carcinoma--long-term results of phase III RTOG 85-31.

            Radiation Therapy Oncology Group protocol 85-31 was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of adjuvant androgen suppression, using goserelin, in unfavorable prognosis carcinoma of the prostate treated with definitive radiotherapy (RT). Eligible patients were those with palpable primary tumor extending beyond the prostate (clinical Stage T3) or those with regional lymphatic involvement. Patients who had undergone prostatectomy were eligible if penetration through the prostatic capsule to the margin of resection and/or seminal vesicle involvement was documented histologically. Stratification was based on histologic differentiation, nodal status, acid phosphatase status, and prior prostatectomy. The patients were randomized to either RT and adjuvant goserelin (Arm I) or RT alone followed by observation and application of goserelin at relapse (Arm II). In Arm I, the drug was to be started during the last week of RT and was to be continued indefinitely or until signs of progression. Between 1987 and 1992, when the study was closed, 977 patients were entered: 488 to Arm I and 489 to Arm II. As of July 2003, the median follow-up for all patients was 7.6 years and for living patients was 11 years. At 10 years, the absolute survival rate was significantly greater for the adjuvant arm than for the control arm: 49% vs. 39%, respectively (p = 0.002). The 10-year local failure rate for the adjuvant arm was 23% vs. 38% for the control arm (p <0.0001). The corresponding 10-year rates for the incidence of distant metastases and disease-specific mortality was 24% vs. 39% (p <0.001) and 16% vs. 22% (p = 0.0052), respectively, both in favor of the adjuvant arm. In a population of patients with unfavorable prognosis carcinoma of the prostate, androgen suppression applied as an adjuvant after definitive RT was associated not only with a reduction in disease progression but in a statistically significant improvement in absolute survival. The improvement in survival appeared preferentially in patients with a Gleason score of 7-10.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Validation Study of the American Joint Committee on Cancer Eighth Edition Prognostic Stage Compared With the Anatomic Stage in Breast Cancer

              Question Does the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition breast cancer prognostic stage provide more refined stratification with respect to disease-specific survival than the anatomic stage? Findings Patients with breast cancer treated with surgery as an initial intervention were identified in a database from The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (n = 3327, years of treatment 2007-2013, median follow-up of 5 years) and the California Cancer Registry (n = 54 727, years of treatment 2005-2009, median follow-up of 7 years). In both cohorts, the prognostic stage was significantly more accurate than the anatomic stage. Meaning The newly introduced prognostic stage is more accurate than the anatomic stage, supporting its use in clinical practice. Importance The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) eighth edition staging manual introduced a new prognostic stage for breast cancer incorporating biologic factors in addition to traditional anatomic factors. Objective To perform a validation study of the AJCC eighth edition prognostic stage in a single-institution cohort and a large population database. Design, Setting, and Participants Patients with breast cancer treated with surgery as an initial intervention were identified in a prospective institutional database from The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and the California Cancer Registry. Vital status data were complete through December 31, 2016, in The University of Texas MD Anderson cohort and through December 31, 2014, in the California Cancer Registry cohort. Patients receiving neoadjuvant systemic therapy, those with inflammatory or rare breast cancers, and those with unknown clinicopathologic factors were excluded. Factors evaluated included T, N, and M categories and tumor grade, as well as estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 status. Main Outcomes and Measures Disease-specific survival was calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method. The Harrell concordance index (C index) was used to quantify models’ predictive performance, and the Akaike information criterion (AIC) was used to compare model fits. Results A total of 3327 patients with stage I to IIIC breast cancer treated between 2007 and 2013 at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (median follow-up of 5 years) with complete clinicopathologic data were identified. Compared with the AJCC anatomic stage, the prognostic stage upstaged 29.5% of patients and downstaged 28.1%. The prognostic stage (C index, 0.8357 and AIC, 816.8) provided more accurate stratification with respect to disease-specific survival than the anatomic stage (C index, 0.737 and AIC, 1039.8) ( P  < .001 for the C index). A total of 54 727 patients with stage I to IV breast cancer treated between 2005 and 2009 were identified in the California Cancer Registry (median follow-up of 7 years). The prognostic stage upstaged 31.0% of patients and downstaged 20.6%. The prognostic stage (C index, 0.8426 and AIC, 80 661.68) performed better than the anatomic stage (C index, 0.8097 and AIC, 81 577.89) ( P  < .001 for the C index). Conclusions and Relevance The prognostic stage provided more accurate prognostic information than the anatomic stage alone in both a single-institution cohort and a large population database, thereby supporting its use in breast cancer staging. This validation study compares the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition prognostic stage with the anatomic stage among patients with breast cancer in a single-institution cohort and a large population database.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                drmaxuelei@gmail.com
                Journal
                BMC Cancer
                BMC Cancer
                BMC Cancer
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2407
                4 February 2020
                4 February 2020
                2020
                : 20
                : 97
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0807 1581, GRID grid.13291.38, Department of Biotherapy, West China Hospital and State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, , Sichuan University, ; Chengdu, People’s Republic of China
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0807 1581, GRID grid.13291.38, Department of Urology, Institute of Urology and National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics and Center of Biomedical Big Data, West China Hospital, , Sichuan University, ; Chengdu, Sichuan Province People’s Republic of China
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0807 1581, GRID grid.13291.38, West China School of Medicine, , Sichuan University, ; Chengdu, People’s Republic of China
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9148-5001
                Article
                6565
                10.1186/s12885-020-6565-5
                7001324
                32019501
                eac0f9d0-5d98-42b0-bfbd-717de8576bc6
                © The Author(s). 2020

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 3 November 2019
                : 21 January 2020
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                prostate cancer,radical prostatectomy,nomogram
                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy, nomogram

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content172

                Cited by13

                Most referenced authors805