Head-to-Head Comparison of the Three Most Commonly Used Preoperative Models for Prediction of Biochemical Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy

European Urology

Volumn 57, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 562-568

  Lughezzani, Giovanni ^a,b   Budäus, Lars ^a,c   Isbarn, Hendrik ^c   Sun, Maxine ^a   Perrotte, Paul ^a   Haese, Alexander ^c   Chun, Felix K ^c   Schlomm, Thorsten ^c   Steuber, Thomas ^c   Heinzer, Hans ^c   Huland, Hartwig ^c   Montorsi, Francesco ^b   Graefen, Markus ^c   Karakiewicz, Pierre I ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^b VITA SALUTE SAN RAFFAELE UNIVERSITY   (Italy)

^c UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER HAMBURG EPPENDORF   (Germany)

Author keywords

Biochemical recurrence; Preoperative predictive models; Prostate cancer; Radical prostatectomy

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ACCURACY; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CALIBRATION; CANCER OF THE PROSTATE RISK ASSESSMENT SCORE; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER RECURRENCE; COHORT ANALYSIS; EUROPE; FOLLOW UP; GERMANY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MODEL; PREOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; SCORING SYSTEM;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; BIOPSY; COHORT STUDIES; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; DISEASE-FREE SURVIVAL; GERMANY; HUMANS; KAPLAN-MEIER ESTIMATE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, STATISTICAL; NEOPLASM RECURRENCE, LOCAL; NEOPLASM STAGING; NOMOGRAMS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; TIME FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 77249127358     PISSN: 03022838     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.12.003     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Pound C.R., Partin A.W., Eisenberger M.A., et al. Natural history of progression after PSA elevation following radical prostatectomy. JAMA 281 (1999) 1591-1597
2. Amling C.L., Blute M.L., Bergstralh E.J., et al. Long-term hazard of progression after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: continued risk of biochemical failure after 5 years. J Urol 164 (2000) 101-105
3. Kattan M. Statistical prediction models, artificial neural networks, and the sophism "I am a patient, not a statistic". J Clin Oncol 20 (2002) 885-887
4. D'Amico A.V., Whittington R., Malkowicz S.B., et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 280 (1998) 969-974
5. Cooperberg M.R., Pasta D.J., Elkin E.P., et al. The University of California, San Francisco Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score: a straightforward and reliable preoperative predictor of disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 173 (2005) 1938-1942
6. Stephenson A.J., Scardino P.T., Eastham J.A., et al. Preoperative nomogram predicting the 10-year probability of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst 98 (2006) 715-717
7. Mitchell J.A., Cooperberg M.R., Elkin E.P., et al. Ability of 2 pretreatment risk assessment methods to predict prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy: data from CaPSURE. J Urol 173 (2005) 1126-1131
8. May M, Knoll N, Siegsmund M, et al. Validity of the CAPRA score to predict biochemical recurrence-free survival after radical prostatectomy. Results from a European multicenter survey of 1,296 patients. J Urol 2007; 178:1957-62, discussion 1962.
9. Cooperberg M.R., Freedland S.J., Pasta D.J., et al. Multiinstitutional validation of the UCSF cancer of the prostate risk assessment for prediction of recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Cancer 107 (2006) 2384-2391
10. Zhao K.H., Hernandez D.J., Han M., et al. External validation of University of California, San Francisco, Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score. Urology 72 (2008) 396-400
11. Gleason D.F. Histologic grading of prostate cancer: a perspective. Hum Pathol 23 (1992) 273-279
12. Vergouwe Y., Steyerberg E.W., Eijkemans M.J., and Habbema J.D. Validity of prognostic models: when is a model clinically useful?. Semin Urol Oncol 20 (2002) 96-107
13. Harrell Jr. F.E., Califf R.M., Pryor D.B., Lee K.L., and Rosati R.A. Evaluating the yield of medical tests. JAMA 247 (1982) 2543-2546
14. Harrell Jr. F.E., Lee K.L., and Mark D.B. Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med 15 (1996) 361-387
15. Vickers A.J., and Elkin E.B. Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med Decis Making 26 (2006) 565-574
16. Kattan M.W., Eastham J.A., Stapleton A.M., Wheeler T.M., and Scardino P.T. A preoperative nomogram for disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 90 (1998) 766-771
17. Graefen M., Karakiewicz P.I., Cagiannos I., et al. A validation of two preoperative nomograms predicting recurrence following radical prostatectomy in a cohort of European men. Urol Oncol 7 (2002) 141-146
18. Graefen M., Karakiewicz P.I., Cagiannos I., et al. International validation of a preoperative nomogram for prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 20 (2002) 3206-3212
19. Walz J., Chun F.K., Klein E.A., et al. Nomogram predicting the probability of early recurrence after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 181 (2009) 601-607 discussion 607-8
20. Albertsen P.C., Hanley J.A., Barrows G.H., et al. Prostate cancer and the Will Rogers phenomenon. J Natl Cancer Inst 97 (2005) 1248-1253
21. Stephenson A.J., Scardino P.T., Eastham J.A., et al. Postoperative nomogram predicting the 10-year probability of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 23 (2005) 7005-7012