Comparative validation of nomograms predicting clinically insignificant prostate cancer

Viacheslav Iremashvili, Mark S. Soloway, Lisét Pelaez, Daniel L. Rosenberg, Murugesan Manoharan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To validate and compare the accuracy and performance of nomograms predicting insignificant prostate cancer and to analyze their performance in patients with different cancer locations. Methods: Our cohort consisted of 370 radical prostatectomy patients with Gleason ≤6 prostate cancer diagnosed on transrectal biopsy with at least 10 cores. We quantified the performance of each nomogram with respect to discrimination, calibration, predictive accuracy at different cut points, and the clinical net benefit. We also evaluated these parameters in subgroups of patients with predominantly anterior-apical (AA) and posterior-basal (PB) tumor location. Results: Insignificant prostate cancer was present in 141 patients (38%). The Kattan and Steyerberg nomograms outperformed other studied models and demonstrated fair discrimination (areas under the receiver operating characteristics curve 0.768 and 0.770, respectively), good calibration, balanced predictive accuracy, and the highest net benefit. All nomograms were less accurate at higher levels of predicted probability. The performance of the nomograms was better in patients with PB tumors than in those with AA tumors. The loss of correlation with the actual prevalence of insignificant prostate cancer at higher levels of predicted probability was not seen in the PB subgroup but was particularly noticeable in the AA subgroup. Conclusion: The Kattan and Steyerberg nomograms demonstrated the best performance in predicting the probability of insignificant prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort of patients with Gleason ≤6 cancer diagnosed on specimens from an extended transrectal biopsy. However, all studied nomograms were more accurate in identifying significant rather than insignificant disease, particularly for tumors located in the apical and anterior prostate.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1202-1208
Number of pages7
JournalUrology
Volume81
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2013

Fingerprint

Nomograms
Prostatic Neoplasms
Neoplasms
Calibration
Biopsy
Prostatectomy
ROC Curve
Prostate

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Iremashvili, V., Soloway, M. S., Pelaez, L., Rosenberg, D. L., & Manoharan, M. (2013). Comparative validation of nomograms predicting clinically insignificant prostate cancer. Urology, 81(6), 1202-1208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2013.01.062

Comparative validation of nomograms predicting clinically insignificant prostate cancer. / Iremashvili, Viacheslav; Soloway, Mark S.; Pelaez, Lisét; Rosenberg, Daniel L.; Manoharan, Murugesan.

In: Urology, Vol. 81, No. 6, 01.06.2013, p. 1202-1208.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Iremashvili, V, Soloway, MS, Pelaez, L, Rosenberg, DL & Manoharan, M 2013, 'Comparative validation of nomograms predicting clinically insignificant prostate cancer', Urology, vol. 81, no. 6, pp. 1202-1208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2013.01.062
Iremashvili V, Soloway MS, Pelaez L, Rosenberg DL, Manoharan M. Comparative validation of nomograms predicting clinically insignificant prostate cancer. Urology. 2013 Jun 1;81(6):1202-1208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2013.01.062
Iremashvili, Viacheslav ; Soloway, Mark S. ; Pelaez, Lisét ; Rosenberg, Daniel L. ; Manoharan, Murugesan. / Comparative validation of nomograms predicting clinically insignificant prostate cancer. In: Urology. 2013 ; Vol. 81, No. 6. pp. 1202-1208.
@article{55239a0f500d42b380ac47c84c25539e,
title = "Comparative validation of nomograms predicting clinically insignificant prostate cancer",
abstract = "Objective: To validate and compare the accuracy and performance of nomograms predicting insignificant prostate cancer and to analyze their performance in patients with different cancer locations. Methods: Our cohort consisted of 370 radical prostatectomy patients with Gleason ≤6 prostate cancer diagnosed on transrectal biopsy with at least 10 cores. We quantified the performance of each nomogram with respect to discrimination, calibration, predictive accuracy at different cut points, and the clinical net benefit. We also evaluated these parameters in subgroups of patients with predominantly anterior-apical (AA) and posterior-basal (PB) tumor location. Results: Insignificant prostate cancer was present in 141 patients (38{\%}). The Kattan and Steyerberg nomograms outperformed other studied models and demonstrated fair discrimination (areas under the receiver operating characteristics curve 0.768 and 0.770, respectively), good calibration, balanced predictive accuracy, and the highest net benefit. All nomograms were less accurate at higher levels of predicted probability. The performance of the nomograms was better in patients with PB tumors than in those with AA tumors. The loss of correlation with the actual prevalence of insignificant prostate cancer at higher levels of predicted probability was not seen in the PB subgroup but was particularly noticeable in the AA subgroup. Conclusion: The Kattan and Steyerberg nomograms demonstrated the best performance in predicting the probability of insignificant prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort of patients with Gleason ≤6 cancer diagnosed on specimens from an extended transrectal biopsy. However, all studied nomograms were more accurate in identifying significant rather than insignificant disease, particularly for tumors located in the apical and anterior prostate.",
author = "Viacheslav Iremashvili and Soloway, {Mark S.} and Lis{\'e}t Pelaez and Rosenberg, {Daniel L.} and Murugesan Manoharan",
year = "2013",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.urology.2013.01.062",
language = "English",
volume = "81",
pages = "1202--1208",
journal = "Urology",
issn = "0090-4295",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparative validation of nomograms predicting clinically insignificant prostate cancer

AU - Iremashvili, Viacheslav

AU - Soloway, Mark S.

AU - Pelaez, Lisét

AU - Rosenberg, Daniel L.

AU - Manoharan, Murugesan

PY - 2013/6/1

Y1 - 2013/6/1

N2 - Objective: To validate and compare the accuracy and performance of nomograms predicting insignificant prostate cancer and to analyze their performance in patients with different cancer locations. Methods: Our cohort consisted of 370 radical prostatectomy patients with Gleason ≤6 prostate cancer diagnosed on transrectal biopsy with at least 10 cores. We quantified the performance of each nomogram with respect to discrimination, calibration, predictive accuracy at different cut points, and the clinical net benefit. We also evaluated these parameters in subgroups of patients with predominantly anterior-apical (AA) and posterior-basal (PB) tumor location. Results: Insignificant prostate cancer was present in 141 patients (38%). The Kattan and Steyerberg nomograms outperformed other studied models and demonstrated fair discrimination (areas under the receiver operating characteristics curve 0.768 and 0.770, respectively), good calibration, balanced predictive accuracy, and the highest net benefit. All nomograms were less accurate at higher levels of predicted probability. The performance of the nomograms was better in patients with PB tumors than in those with AA tumors. The loss of correlation with the actual prevalence of insignificant prostate cancer at higher levels of predicted probability was not seen in the PB subgroup but was particularly noticeable in the AA subgroup. Conclusion: The Kattan and Steyerberg nomograms demonstrated the best performance in predicting the probability of insignificant prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort of patients with Gleason ≤6 cancer diagnosed on specimens from an extended transrectal biopsy. However, all studied nomograms were more accurate in identifying significant rather than insignificant disease, particularly for tumors located in the apical and anterior prostate.

AB - Objective: To validate and compare the accuracy and performance of nomograms predicting insignificant prostate cancer and to analyze their performance in patients with different cancer locations. Methods: Our cohort consisted of 370 radical prostatectomy patients with Gleason ≤6 prostate cancer diagnosed on transrectal biopsy with at least 10 cores. We quantified the performance of each nomogram with respect to discrimination, calibration, predictive accuracy at different cut points, and the clinical net benefit. We also evaluated these parameters in subgroups of patients with predominantly anterior-apical (AA) and posterior-basal (PB) tumor location. Results: Insignificant prostate cancer was present in 141 patients (38%). The Kattan and Steyerberg nomograms outperformed other studied models and demonstrated fair discrimination (areas under the receiver operating characteristics curve 0.768 and 0.770, respectively), good calibration, balanced predictive accuracy, and the highest net benefit. All nomograms were less accurate at higher levels of predicted probability. The performance of the nomograms was better in patients with PB tumors than in those with AA tumors. The loss of correlation with the actual prevalence of insignificant prostate cancer at higher levels of predicted probability was not seen in the PB subgroup but was particularly noticeable in the AA subgroup. Conclusion: The Kattan and Steyerberg nomograms demonstrated the best performance in predicting the probability of insignificant prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort of patients with Gleason ≤6 cancer diagnosed on specimens from an extended transrectal biopsy. However, all studied nomograms were more accurate in identifying significant rather than insignificant disease, particularly for tumors located in the apical and anterior prostate.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84878591132&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84878591132&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.urology.2013.01.062

DO - 10.1016/j.urology.2013.01.062

M3 - Article

C2 - 23561706

AN - SCOPUS:84878591132

VL - 81

SP - 1202

EP - 1208

JO - Urology

JF - Urology

SN - 0090-4295

IS - 6

ER -