Nomograms are superior to staging and risk grouping systems for identifying high-risk patients: Preoperative application in prostate cancer

Current Opinion in Urology

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 111-116

  Kattan, Michael W ^a  

^a MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Clinical design trial; Prediction

Indexed keywords

TUMOR MARKER;

CANCER RISK; CANCER STAGING; HIGH RISK POPULATION; HUMAN; NOMOGRAM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; REVIEW;

HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; MODELS, STATISTICAL; NEOPLASM STAGING; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RISK FACTORS;

EID: 0037336502     PISSN: 09630643     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00042307-200303000-00005     Document Type: Review

References (16)

1. Begg CB, Cramer LD, Venkatraman ES, Rosai J. Comparing tumor staging and grading systems: a case study and a review of the issues, using thymoma as a model. Stat Med 2000; 19:1997-2014.
2. Kattan MW, Reuter V, Motzer RJ, et al. A postoperative prognostic nomogram for renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 2001; 166:63-67.
3. Kattan MW, Zelefsky MJ, Kupelian PA, et al. Pretreatment nomogram for predicting the outcome of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy in prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18:3352-3359.
4. Levine MN, Browman GP, Gent M, et al. When is a prognostic factor useful? A guide for the perplexed. J Clin Oncol 1991; 9:348-356.
5. Scher HI, Heller G. Clinical states in prostate cancer: toward a dynamic model of disease progression. Urology 2000; 55:323-327.
6. Schwarzer G, Schumacher M. Artificial neural networks for diagnosis and prognosis in prostate cancer. Semin Urol Oncol 2002; 20:89-95. This is a must read for the neural network enthusiast, which documents many problems with the literature comparing neural networks with traditional statistical methods (as does Ref. [7] below).
7. Schwarzer G, Vach W, Schumacher M. On the misuses of artificial neural networks for prognostic and diagnostic classification in oncology. Stat Med 2000; 19:541-561.
8. Eastham JA, May R, Robertson JL, et al. Development of a nomogram that predicts the probability of a positive prostate biopsy in men with an abnormal digital rectal examination and a prostate-specific antigen between 0 and 4 ng/mL. Urology 1999; 54:709-713.
9. Partin AW, Kattan MW, Subong EN, et al. Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer: a multi-institutional update. JAMA 1997; 277:1445-1451 [erratum in JAMA 1997; 278:118].
10. Blute ML, Bergstralh EJ, Partin AW, et al. Validation of Partin tables for predicting pathological stage of clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 1999; 164:1591-1595.
11. Partin AW, Mangold LA, Lamm DM, et al. Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin tables) for the new millennium. Urology 2001; 58:843-848.
12. Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Stapleton AMF, et al. A preoperative nomogram for disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998; 90:766-771.
13. Graefen M, Karakiewicz P, Cagiannos I, et al. A validation of two preoperative nomograms predicting recurrence following radical prostatectomy in a cohort of European men. Urol Oncol 2002; 7:141-146. Continuous risk estimation predicted better than risk grouping (P=0.027).
14. Graefen M, Karakiewicz PI, Cagiannos I, et al. International validation of a preoperative nomogram for prostate cancer recurrence following radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20:3206-3212.
15. Ross PL, Scardino PT, Kattan MW. A catalog of prostate cancer nomograms. J Urol 2001; 165:1562-1568.
16. Kattan MW, Leung DHY, Brennan MF. A postoperative nomogram for 12-year sarcoma-specific death. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20:791-796. Continuous risk estimation beat CART (recursive partitioning) and simply matching patients from a database.