3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Predicting recurrence and survival in patients with non-metastatic renal-cell carcinoma after nephrectomy: a prospective population-based study with multicenter validation

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background:

          Accurate prognostication of oncological outcomes is crucial for the optimal management of patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) after surgery. Previous prediction models were developed mainly based on retrospective data in the Western populations, and their predicting accuracy remains limited in contemporary, prospective validation. We aimed to develop contemporary RCC prognostic models for recurrence and overall survival (OS) using prospective population-based patient cohorts and compare their performance with existing, mostly utilized ones.

          Methods:

          In this prospective analysis and external validation study, the development set included 11  128 consecutive patients with non-metastatic RCC treated at a tertiary urology center in China between 2006 and 2022, and the validation set included 853 patients treated at 13 medical centers in the USA between 1996 and 2013. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS), and the secondary outcome was OS. Multivariable Cox regression was used for variable selection and model development. Model performance was assessed by discrimination [Harrell’s C-index and time-dependent areas under the curve (AUC)] and calibration (calibration plots). Models were validated internally by bootstrapping and externally by examining their performance in the validation set. The predictive accuracy of the models was compared with validated models commonly used in clinical trial designs and with recently developed models without extensive validation.

          Results:

          Of the 11  128 patients included in the development set, 633 PFS and 588 OS events occurred over a median follow-up of 4.3 years [interquartile range (IQR) 1.7–7.8]. Six common clinicopathologic variables (tumor necrosis, size, grade, thrombus, nodal involvement, and perinephric or renal sinus fat invasion) were included in each model. The models demonstrated similar C-indices in the development set (0.790 [95% CI 0.773–0.806] for PFS and 0.793 [95% CI 0.773–0.811] for OS) and in the external validation set (0.773 [0.731–0.816] and 0.723 [0.731–0.816]). A relatively stable predictive ability of the models was observed in the development set (PFS: time-dependent AUC 0.832 at 1 year to 0.760 at 9 years; OS: 0.828 at 1 year to 0.794 at 9 years). The models were well calibrated and their predictions correlated with the observed outcome at 3, 5, and 7 years in both development and validation sets. In comparison to existing prognostic models, the present models showed superior performance, as indicated by C-indices ranging from 0.722 to 0.755 (all P<0.0001) for PFS and from 0.680 to 0.744 (all P<0.0001) for OS. The predictive accuracy of the current models was robust in patients with clear-cell and non-clear-cell RCC.

          Conclusions:

          Based on a prospective population-based patient cohort, the newly developed prognostic models were externally validated and outperformed the currently available models for predicting recurrence and survival in patients with non-metastatic RCC after surgery. The current models have the potential to aid in clinical trial design and facilitate clinical decision-making for both clear-cell and non-clear-cell RCC patients at varying risk of recurrence and survival.

          Related collections

          Most cited references35

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries

          This article provides an update on the global cancer burden using the GLOBOCAN 2020 estimates of cancer incidence and mortality produced by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Worldwide, an estimated 19.3 million new cancer cases (18.1 million excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) and almost 10.0 million cancer deaths (9.9 million excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) occurred in 2020. Female breast cancer has surpassed lung cancer as the most commonly diagnosed cancer, with an estimated 2.3 million new cases (11.7%), followed by lung (11.4%), colorectal (10.0 %), prostate (7.3%), and stomach (5.6%) cancers. Lung cancer remained the leading cause of cancer death, with an estimated 1.8 million deaths (18%), followed by colorectal (9.4%), liver (8.3%), stomach (7.7%), and female breast (6.9%) cancers. Overall incidence was from 2-fold to 3-fold higher in transitioned versus transitioning countries for both sexes, whereas mortality varied <2-fold for men and little for women. Death rates for female breast and cervical cancers, however, were considerably higher in transitioning versus transitioned countries (15.0 vs 12.8 per 100,000 and 12.4 vs 5.2 per 100,000, respectively). The global cancer burden is expected to be 28.4 million cases in 2040, a 47% rise from 2020, with a larger increase in transitioning (64% to 95%) versus transitioned (32% to 56%) countries due to demographic changes, although this may be further exacerbated by increasing risk factors associated with globalization and a growing economy. Efforts to build a sustainable infrastructure for the dissemination of cancer prevention measures and provision of cancer care in transitioning countries is critical for global cancer control.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors.

            Multivariable regression models are powerful tools that are used frequently in studies of clinical outcomes. These models can use a mixture of categorical and continuous variables and can handle partially observed (censored) responses. However, uncritical application of modelling techniques can result in models that poorly fit the dataset at hand, or, even more likely, inaccurately predict outcomes on new subjects. One must know how to measure qualities of a model's fit in order to avoid poorly fitted or overfitted models. Measurement of predictive accuracy can be difficult for survival time data in the presence of censoring. We discuss an easily interpretable index of predictive discrimination as well as methods for assessing calibration of predicted survival probabilities. Both types of predictive accuracy should be unbiasedly validated using bootstrapping or cross-validation, before using predictions in a new data series. We discuss some of the hazards of poorly fitted and overfitted regression models and present one modelling strategy that avoids many of the problems discussed. The methods described are applicable to all regression models, but are particularly needed for binary, ordinal, and time-to-event outcomes. Methods are illustrated with a survival analysis in prostate cancer using Cox regression.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): Explanation and Elaboration

              The TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis) Statement includes a 22-item checklist, which aims to improve the reporting of studies developing, validating, or updating a prediction model, whether for diagnostic or prognostic purposes. The TRIPOD Statement aims to improve the transparency of the reporting of a prediction model study regardless of the study methods used. This explanation and elaboration document describes the rationale; clarifies the meaning of each item; and discusses why transparent reporting is important, with a view to assessing risk of bias and clinical usefulness of the prediction model. Each checklist item of the TRIPOD Statement is explained in detail and accompanied by published examples of good reporting. The document also provides a valuable reference of issues to consider when designing, conducting, and analyzing prediction model studies. To aid the editorial process and help peer reviewers and, ultimately, readers and systematic reviewers of prediction model studies, it is recommended that authors include a completed checklist in their submission. The TRIPOD checklist can also be downloaded from www.tripod-statement.org.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Int J Surg
                Int J Surg
                JS9
                International Journal of Surgery (London, England)
                Lippincott Williams & Wilkins (Hagerstown, MD )
                1743-9191
                1743-9159
                February 2024
                24 November 2023
                : 110
                : 2
                : 820-831
                Affiliations
                [a ]Nuffield Department of Population Health
                [b ]Centre for Statistics in Medicine and NIHR Biomedical Research Centre Oxford, NDORMS, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
                [c ]School of Population Medicine and Public Health, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences/Peking Union Medical College
                [d ]Department of Urology, The Third Medical Centre, Chinese PLA (People’s Liberation Army) General Hospital, Beijing
                [e ]Department of Orthopedics, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Hunan
                [f ]Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Hunan, People’s Republic of China
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author. Address: Centre for Statistics in Medicine and NIHR Biomedical Research Centre Oxford, NDORMS, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7HE, United Kingdom. Tel.: +44 7529178298. E-mail: junqing.xie@ 123456ndorms.ox.ac.uk (J. Xie); Department of Urology, The Third Medical Centre, Chinese PLA (People’s Liberation Army) General Hospital 100069, Beijing, People’s Republic of China. Tel.: +86 66936394. E-mail: mxin301@ 123456126.com (X. Ma).
                Article
                IJS-D-23-01563 00021
                10.1097/JS9.0000000000000935
                10871562
                38016139
                792b48c1-6e4e-45af-9ad1-742a232b9c50
                Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives License 4.0, which allows for redistribution, commercial and non-commercial, as long as it is passed along unchanged and in whole, with credit to the author. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/

                History
                : 25 July 2023
                : 9 November 2023
                Categories
                Original Research
                Custom metadata
                TRUE
                T

                Surgery
                long-term survival,nephrectomy,prognostic model,recurrence,renal cell carcinoma
                Surgery
                long-term survival, nephrectomy, prognostic model, recurrence, renal cell carcinoma

                Comments

                Comment on this article