We've noticed that you're using an ad blocker

Our content is brought to you free of charge because of the support of our advertisers. To continue enjoying our content, please turn off your ad blocker.

It's off now Dismiss How do I disable my ad blocker?
❌

How to disable your ad blocker for our site:

Adblock / Adblock Plus
  • Click on the AdBlock / AdBlock Plus icon on the top right of your browser.
  • Click “Don’t run on pages on this domain.” OR “Enabled on this site.”
  • Close this help box and click "It's off now".
Firefox Tracking Prevention
  • If you are Private Browsing in Firefox, "Tracking Protection" may casue the adblock notice to show. It can be temporarily disabled by clicking the "shield" icon in the address bar.
  • Close this help box and click "It's off now".
Ghostery
  • Click the Ghostery icon on your browser.
  • In Ghostery versions < 6.0 click “Whitelist site.” in version 6.0 click “Trust site.”
  • Close this help box and click "It's off now".
uBlock / uBlock Origin
  • Click the uBlock / uBlock Origin icon on your browser.
  • Click the “power” button in the menu that appears to whitelist the current website
  • Close this help box and click "It's off now".
  • ONCOLOGY
  • News
  • Blogs
  • Topics
  • Hematology
  • Image IQ
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Slideshows
  • Conferences

Modern Medicine Network
  • Login
  • Register
Skip to main content
Modern Medicine Network
  • Login
  • Register
Menu
User
Home
  • ONCOLOGY
  • News
  • Blogs
  • Topics
  • Hematology
  • Image IQ
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Slideshows
  • Conferences

SUBSCRIBE: Print / eNewsletter

Which Formula Best Predicts Disease-Free Interval in Localized Prostate Cancer?

  • Benjamin Movsas, MD
Nov 1, 1997
Volume: 
6
Issue: 
11
  • Genitourinary Cancers, Prostate Cancer
Abstract / Synopsis: 
ABSTRACT: Using a series of 421 patients with localized prostate cancer who were treated with radiation, six predictive models were analyzed to determine which model correlates most closely to actual clinical outcome data in regard to biochemical freedom from failure. Multivariate analysis was performed using the following covariates: prostate specific antigen; Gleason score; stage; dose; PSA density; and perineural invasion. Initially, the Pisansky model appeared to be the most predictive. However, following logarithmic transformation analysis, all of the models appeared to be equally predictive of bNED outcome. [Oncol News Int 6(Suppl 3):10-11, 1997]

Introduction

Which of the several models developed to predict outcome following definitive therapy for prostate cancer is the most accurate? An initial analysis of six models showed that the model developed by Thomas Pisansky, MD provided the closest correlation to actual clinical outcome data measuring biochemical freedom from failure (bNED). Following logarithmic transformation analysis, however, all of the models analyzed appeared to be equally predictive of bNED outcome.

The analysis of the models was directed by Benjamin Movsas, MD, Department of Radiation Oncology at Fox Chase Cancer Center. The data were presented at the First Sonoma Conference on Prostate Cancer by Gerald E. Hanks, MD, department chairman.

“As we approach the 21st century, clinically useful predictive models are sorely needed to reliably stratify patients for future treatment strategies,” Dr. Hanks said. “They’re also very useful in the clinic to help us counsel patients about what to do.”

Six Models Were Analyzed

Six models or equations were analyzed in a definitive radiotherapy series of 421 patients with localized prostate cancer. Patients received a median dose of 74 Gy between March 1988 and November 1994. A stepwise Cox proportional hazard multivariate analysis (MVA) was performed using the following covariates: prostate specific antigen (PSA); Gleason score; stage; dose of radiation; PSA density; and perineural invasion.

Subsequent MVAs were performed for each model incorporating the new construct or prognostic groupings. The adequacy of the models was confirmed using plots of score residuals against time to bNED failure, defined as two consecutive rises in PSA equaling or exceeding 1.5 ng/mL. The median follow-up was 34 months.

Standard Paradigm Used

Akaike’s Information Criteria (AIC) were used to compare the different models. A smaller AIC value corresponds to a statistically more accurate model.

The first model analyzed was the standard paradigm used in the Department of Radiation Oncology at Fox Chase. The three significant factors included in that model are pretreatment PSA, Gleason score, and stage.

The AIC value for the standard model was 817. The AIC values for the other models ranged from 820 for the D’Amico and Propert model to 796 for the Pisansky model (Table 1).

Based on the initial analysis, the Pisansky model appeared to be the most predictive due to having the lowest AIC value and the simplicity of the risk estimate, which is the sole predictor of outcome.

“It is the only model there that has one degree of freedom. So, from that point of view, it’s a better model,” Dr. Hanks said.

“To be useful,” Dr. Hanks explained, “a predictive model must accurately predict for outcome, in order to provide estimates of risk that are reliable in the patient population that we want to study. And sometimes this is achieved by implementing additional prognostic covariants, or degrees of freedom, to create a better fit.

“However, the model that boils down to one risk estimate, or one degree of freedom, provides parsimony that facilitates its application, compared to models that involve multiple degrees of freedom. For example, a model that incorporates three prognostic factors to derive a single risk estimate is advantageous to a model that involves three separate predictive factors.”

The differences in accuracy between the models were mostly eliminated by converting them to a logarithmic function, Dr. Hanks said. Following the logarithmic transformation analysis, all of the models appear to be equally predictive of biochemical freedom from failure.

The AIC values differed by only 4 points, with the Pisansky model at 796, the D’Amico and Propert models at 800, and all the other models at 799 (Table 1).

Everything in Your Pocket

Summarizing what makes a good model, Dr. Hanks said that it must be clinically useful, needs to be convenient to use in the clinic, to help counsel patients about what their chances truly are, and it needs to be compact. “It’s best if everything you need to operate the model is in your pocket, when you’re in the clinic.”

Related Articles

  • Nivolumab/Ipilimumab Combo Approved for Advanced RCC
  • No Improved Outcomes in Prostate Cancer With ADT Plus Mitoxantrone/Prednisone
  • Antibiotics Reduced Efficacy of Checkpoint Inhibitors in RCC, NSCLC
  • Pembrolizumab Offers Better QOL vs Chemo in Advanced Urothelial Cancer
  • First-Line Avelumab/Axitinib Encouraging in Advanced RCC

Resource Topics rightRail

  • Resource Topics
  • Partner Content
Breast Cancer
Lung Cancer
Prostate Cancer
Colorectal Cancer
Melanoma
Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphomas: Mycosis Fungoides and Sézary Syndrome
3 Keys to Success in the Oncology Care Model

Current Issue

Oncology Vol 32 No 4
Apr 15, 2018 Vol 32 No 4
Digital Edition
Subscribe
Connect with Us
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
Modern Medicine Network
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Advertise
  • Advertiser Terms
  • Privacy statement
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Editorial & Advertising Policy
  • Editorial Board
  • Contact Us
Modern Medicine Network
© UBM 2018, All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited.