Evaluation of prediction models for the staging of prostate cancer

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2013, Pages

  Boyce, Susie ^a   Fan, Yue ^a   Watson, Ronald William ^a   Murphy, Thomas Brendan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN   (Ireland)

Author keywords

Calibration; Discrimination; Model evaluation; Prediction models; Prostate cancer

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CALIBRATION; CANCER STAGING; EVALUATION STUDY; FACTUAL DATABASE; HUMAN; IRELAND; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATE TUMOR; REPRODUCIBILITY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARD; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS;

ADULT; AGED; CALIBRATION; DATABASES, FACTUAL; HUMANS; IRELAND; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, STATISTICAL; NEOPLASM STAGING; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84887557394     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14726947     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1472-6947-13-126     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Cancer statistics. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A, CA Cancer J Clin 2012 62 10 29 10.3322/caac.20138 22237781
2. Biomarker research in prostate cancer-towards utility, not futility. Oon SF, Pennington SR, Fitzpatrick JM, Watson RW, Nat Rev Urol 2011 8 131 138 10.1038/nrurol.2011.11 21394176
3. Pathological upgrading and up staging with immediate repeat biopsy in patients eligible for active surveillance. Berglund RK, Masterson TA, Vora KC, Eggener SE, Eastham JA, Guillonneau BD, J Urol 2008 180 1964 1967 discussion 1967-1968 10.1016/j.juro.2008.07.051 18801515
4. Management of low (favourable)-risk prostate cancer. Carter HB, BJU Int 2011 108 1684 1695 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.10489.x 22077546
5. Overdiagnosis due to prostate-specific antigen screening: lessons from U.S. prostate cancer incidence trends. Etzioni R, Penson DF, Legler JM, di Tommaso D, Boer R, Gann PH, Feuer EJ, J Natl Cancer Inst 2002 94 981 990 10.1093/jnci/94.13.981 12096083 (Pubitemid 34814727)
6. Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. Tosoian JJ, Trock BJ, Landis P, Feng Z, Epstein JI, Partin AW, Walsh PC, Carter HB, J Clin Oncol 2011 29 2185 2190 10.1200/JCO.2010.32.8112 21464416
7. Updated nomogram to predict pathologic stage of prostate cancer given prostate-specific antigen level, clinical stage, and biopsy Gleason score (Partin tables) based on cases from 2000 to 2005. Makarov DV, Trock BJ, Humphreys EB, Mangold LA, Walsh PC, Epstein JI, Partin AW, Urology 2007 69 1095 1101 10.1016/j.urology.2007.03.042 17572194 (Pubitemid 46891611)
8. Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update. Partin AW, Kattan MW, Subong EN, Walsh PC, Wojno KJ, Oesterling JE, Scardino PT, Pearson JD, JAMA 1997 277 1445 1451 10.1001/jama.1997.03540420041027 9145716 (Pubitemid 27208886)
9. Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium. Partin AW, Mangold LA, Lamm DM, Walsh PC, Epstein JI, Pearson JD, Urology 2001 58 843 848 10.1016/S0090-4295(01)01441-8 11744442 (Pubitemid 34017254)
10. The use of prostate specific antigen, clinical stage and Gleason score to predict pathological stage in men with localized prostate cancer. Partin AW, Yoo J, Carter HB, Pearson JD, Chan DW, Epstein JI, Walsh PC, J Urol 1993 150 110 114 7685418 (Pubitemid 23175983)
11. Prediction of patient-specific risk and percentile cohort risk of pathological stage outcome using continuous prostate-specific antigen measurement, clinical stage and biopsy Gleason score. Huang Y, Isharwal S, Haese A, Chun FK, Makarov DV, Feng Z, Han M, Humphreys E, Epstein JI, Partin AW, Veltri RW, BJU Int 2011 107 1562 1569 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09692.x 20875091
12. Nomogram for overall survival of patients with progressive metastatic prostate cancer after castration. Smaletz O, Scher HI, Small EJ, Verbel DA, McMillan A, Regan K, Kelly WK, Kattan MW, J Clin Oncol 2002 20 3972 3982 10.1200/JCO.2002.11.021 12351594
13. Postoperative nomogram predicting the 10-year probability of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Stephenson AJ, Scardino PT, Eastham JA, Bianco FJ Jr, Dotan ZA, DiBlasio CJ, Reuther A, Klein EA, Kattan MW, J Clin Oncol 2005 23 7005 7012 10.1200/JCO.2005.01.867 16192588
14. Preoperative nomogram predicting the 10-year probability of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Stephenson AJ, Scardino PT, Eastham JA, Bianco FJ Jr, Dotan ZA, Fearn PA, Kattan MW, J Natl Cancer Inst 2006 98 715 717 10.1093/jnci/djj190 16705126 (Pubitemid 43821789)
15. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate carcinoma in the prostate specific antigen era. D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Cote K, Loffredo M, Schultz D, Chen MH, Tomaszewski JE, Renshaw AA, Wein A, Richie JP, Cancer 2002 95 281 286 10.1002/cncr.10657 12124827 (Pubitemid 34787593)
16. 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. Cooperberg MR, Pasta DJ, Elkin EP, Litwin MS, Latini DM, Du Chane J, Carroll PR, J Urol 2005 173 1938 1942 10.1097/01.ju.0000158155.33890.e7 15879786 (Pubitemid 40675216)
17. Quantitative biopsy pathology for the prediction of pathologically organ-confined prostate carcinoma: a multiinstitutional validation study. Haese A, Chaudhari M, Miller MC, Epstein JI, Huland H, Palisaar J, Graefen M, Hammerer P, Poole EC, O'Dowd GJ, et al. Cancer 2003 97 969 978 10.1002/cncr.11153 12569595 (Pubitemid 36173147)
18. Comparison of logistic regression and neural net modeling for prediction of prostate cancer pathologic stage. Veltri RW, Chaudhari M, Miller MC, Poole EC, O'Dowd GJ, Partin AW, Clin Chem 2002 48 1828 1834 12324513
19. Prediction of prostate carcinoma stage by quantitative biopsy pathology. Veltri RW, Miller MC, Partin AW, Poole EC, O'Dowd GJ, Cancer 2001 91 2322 2328 10.1002/1097-0142(20010615)91:12<2322:AID-CNCR1264>3.0.CO;2-H 11413521 (Pubitemid 32552818)
20. External validation of the updated Partin tables in a cohort of North American men. Karakiewicz PI, Bhojani N, Capitanio U, Reuther AM, Suardi N, Jeldres C, Pharand D, Peloquin F, Perrotte P, Shariat SF, Klein EA, J Urol 2008 180 898 902 discussion 902-893 10.1016/j.juro.2008.05.044 18635222
21. Head to head comparison of three generations of Partin tables to predict final pathological stage in clinically localised prostate cancer. Augustin H, Isbarn H, Auprich M, Bonstingl D, Al-Ali BM, Mannweiler S, Pummer K, Eur J Cancer 2010 46 2235 2241 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.04.013 20483590
22. Partin tables cannot accurately predict the pathological stage at radical prostatectomy. Bhojani N, Ahyai S, Graefen M, Capitanio U, Suardi N, Shariat SF, Jeldres C, Erbersdobler A, Schlomm T, Haese A, et al. Eur J Surg Oncol 2009 35 123 128 10.1016/j.ejso.2008.07.013 18786800
23. External validation of the updated Partin tables in a cohort of French and Italian men. Bhojani N, Salomon L, Capitanio U, Suardi N, Shariat SF, Jeldres C, Zini L, Pharand D, Peloquin F, Arjane P, et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009 73 347 352 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.04.082 19004573
24. Prostate cancer grading: the effect of stratification of needle biopsy Gleason score 4 + 3 as high or intermediate grade. Fanning DM, Kay E, Fan Y, Fitzpatrick JM, Watson RW, BJU Int 2009 105 631 635 19732053
25. Comparison of accuracy among three generations of Partin tables in a Chinese cohort. Xiao WJ, Ye DW, Yao XD, Zhang SL, Dai B, Wang CF, Wang J, Zhang HL, Shen YJ, Zhu Y, et al. Can J Urol 2011 18 5619 5624 21504650
26. Validation of the Partin nomogram for prostate cancer in a national sample. Yu JB, Makarov DV, Sharma R, Peschel RE, Partin AW, Gross CP, J Urol 2010 183 105 111 10.1016/j.juro.2009.08.143 19913246
27. Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Gleason DF, Cancer Chemother Rep 1966 50 125 128 5948714
28. The 2005 international society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL, Am J Surg Pathol 2005 29 1228 1242 10.1097/01.pas. 0000173646.99337.b1 16096414 (Pubitemid 41232997)
29. An update of the Gleason grading system. Epstein JI, J Urol 2010 183 433 440 10.1016/j.juro.2009.10.046 20006878
30. 20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Fine J, JAMA 2005 293 2095 2101 10.1001/jama.293.17.2095 15870412 (Pubitemid 40617061)
31. 13-year outcomes following treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer in a population based cohort. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Penson DF, Barrows G, Fine J, J Urol 2007 177 932 936 10.1016/j.juro.2006.10.051 17296379 (Pubitemid 46223573)
32. A critical appraisal of logistic regression-based nomograms, artificial neural networks, classification and regression-tree models, look-up tables and risk-group stratification models for prostate cancer. Chun FK, Karakiewicz PI, Briganti A, Walz J, Kattan MW, Huland H, Graefen M, BJU Int 2007 99 794 800 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06694.x 17378842 (Pubitemid 46439569)
33. Final version of the American joint committee on cancer staging system for cutaneous melanoma. Balch CM, Buzaid AC, Soong SJ, Atkins MB, Cascinelli N, Coit DG, Fleming ID, Gershenwald JE, Houghton A Jr, Kirkwood JM, et al. J Clin Oncol 2001 19 3635 3648 11504745 (Pubitemid 32786276)
34. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S, Applied Logistic Regression New York: Wiley 1989
35. Random Forests. Breiman L, Mach Learning 2001 45 5 32 10.1023/A:1010933404324 (Pubitemid 32933532)
36. Duda RO, Hart PE, Stork DG, Pattern classification New York: Wiley 2001
37. Extensions to decision curve analysis, a novel method for evaluating diagnostic tests, prediction models and molecular markers. Vickers AJ, Cronin AM, Elkin EB, Gonen M, BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2008 8 53 10.1186/1472-6947-8-53 19036144
38. Pepe MS, The statistical evaluation of medical tests for classification and prediction Oxford: Oxford University Press 2004
39. Steyerberg EW, Clinical prediction models New York: Springer 2009
40. Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Vickers AJ, Elkin EB, Med Decis Making 2006 26 565 574 10.1177/0272989X06295361 17099194 (Pubitemid 44728772)
41. Decision curve analysis: a discussion. Steyerberg EW, Vickers AJ, Med Decis Making 2008 28 146 149 18263565
42. Fox J, Robust regression: Appendix to an R and S-PLUS companion to applied regression California: SAGE Publications 2002
43. Harrell FE, Regression modeling strategies: with applications to linear models, logistic regression, and survival analysis New York: Springer 2001
44. Diagnostic tests 1: sensitivity and specificity. Altman DC, Bland JM, BMJ 1994 308 1552 10.1136/bmj.308.6943.1552 8019315 (Pubitemid 24178459)
45. Diagnostic tests 2: predictive values. Altman DC, Bland JM, BMJ 1994 309 102 8038641 (Pubitemid 24216428)
46. Index for rating diagnostic tests. Youden WJ, Cancer 1950 3 32 35 10.1002/1097-0142(1950)3:1<32:AID-CNCR2820030106>3.0.CO;2-3 15405679
47. Estimation of the Youden index and its associated cutoff point. Fluss R, Faraggi D, Reiser B, Biom J 2005 47 458 472 10.1002/bimj.200410135 16161804 (Pubitemid 41229379)
48. Verification of forecasts expressed in terms of probability. Brier GW, Mon Weather Rev 1950 78 1 3 10.1175/1520-0493(1950)078<0001:VOFEIT>2.0. CO;2
49. Statistics review 13: receiver operating characteristic curves. Bewick V, Cheek L, Ball J, Crit Care 2004 8 508 512 10.1186/cc3000 15566624 (Pubitemid 40073688)
50. A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ, Radiology 1983 148 839 843 6878708 (Pubitemid 13033817)
51. Gauging the performance of SNPs, biomarkers, and clinical factors for predicting risk of breast cancer. Pepe MS, Janes HE, J Natl Cancer Inst 2008 100 978 979 10.1093/jnci/djn215 18612128 (Pubitemid 352019802)
52. Prediction models in cancer care. Vickers AJ, CA Cancer J Clin 2011 61 315 326
53. Prostate biopsy grading errors: a sampling problem? King CR, Long JP, Int J Cancer 2000 90 326 330 10.1002/1097-0215(20001220)90:6<326:AID-IJC3>3. 0.CO;2-J 11180135 (Pubitemid 32049294)
54. Circulating biomarkers for prostate cancer. Steuber T, Helo P, Lilja H, World J Urol 2007 25 111 119 10.1007/s00345-007-0160-0 17345087
55. Blood biomarkers for prostate cancer detection and prognosis. Shariat SF, Karam JA, Roehrborn CG, Future Oncol 2007 3 449 461 10.2217/14796694.3.4.449 17661720 (Pubitemid 47260286)
56. Emerging biomarkers for the diagnosis and prognosis of prostate cancer. Sardana G, Dowell B, Diamandis EP, Clin Chem 2008 54 1951 1960 10.1373/clinchem.2008.110668 18927246 (Pubitemid 352774027)
57. Biomarkers for prostate cancer detection. Reed AB, Parekh DJ, Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2010 10 103 114 10.1586/era.09.168 20014890
58. Beyond PSA: the next generation of prostate cancer biomarkers. Prensner JR, Rubin MA, Wei JT, Chinnaiyan AM, Sci Transl Med 2012 4 127rv123
59. Emerging biomarkers of prostate cancer (Review). Martin SK, Vaughan TB, Atkinson T, Zhu H, Kyprianou N, Oncol Rep 2012 28 409 417 22641253
60. Biomarkers for early prostate cancer detection. Margreiter M, Stangelberger A, Valimberti E, Herwig R, Djavan B, Minerva Urol Nefrol 2008 60 51 60 18427435 (Pubitemid 351701066)
61. New molecular biomarkers for the prognosis and management of prostate cancer-the post PSA era. Bickers B, Aukim-Hastie C, Anticancer Res 2009 29 3289 3298 19661347
62. New circulating biomarkers for prostate cancer. Bensalah K, Lotan Y, Karam JA, Shariat SF, Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2008 11 112 120 10.1038/sj.pcan.4501026 17998918 (Pubitemid 351676597)
63. Landmarks in prostate cancer diagnosis: the biomarkers. Artibani W, BJU Int 2012 110 Suppl 1 8 13 23046035
64. Assessing the incremental value of diagnostic and prognostic markers: a review and illustration. Steyerberg EW, Pencina MJ, Lingsma HF, Kattan MW, Vickers AJ, Van Calster B, Eur J Clin Invest 2012 42 216 228 10.1111/j.1365-2362.2011.02562.x 21726217
65. Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for traditional and novel measures. Steyerberg EW, Vickers AJ, Cook NR, Gerds T, Gonen M, Obuchowski N, Pencina MJ, Kattan MW, Epidemiology 2010 21 128 138 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181c30fb2 20010215