Development and Validation of a UK-Specific Prostate Cancer Staging Predictive Model: UK Prostate Cancer Tables

Abstract

Objectives:

To construct new prostate cancer staging lookup tables based on a dataset collated by the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) and to validate them and compare their predictive power with Partin tables.

Patients and methods:

Complete data on 1701 patients was collated between 1999 and 2008 across 57 UK centres. Lookup tables were created for prediction of pathological stage (PS) using PSA level, biopsy Gleason score (GS) and clinical stage, replicating Partin's original approach. Tables were generated using logistic regression (LR) and bootstrap resampling methods and were internally validated and externally validated using concordance indices (CI) and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) respectively.

Results:

The CI and AUROC analyses indicate that Partin tables performed poorly on UK data in comparison with US data. The UK prostate cancer tables performed better than Partin tables but the predictive power of all models was relatively poor.

Conclusion:

The study shows that the predictive power of Partin tables is reduced when applied to the UK population. Models generated using LR methodology have fundamental limitations, and we suggest alternative modelling methods such as Bayesian networks.

Keywords

Bayesian networks Logistic regression Lookup table Partin table Prostate cancer Predictive model for staging

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Prostate cancer. NICE full guidelines; 2008. http://guidance.nice.org.uk/CG58.

Cancer Research UK; 2007. http://www.cancerresearchuk.org.

Partin

Yoo

Carter

Pearson

Chan

Epstein

. The use of prostate specific antigen, clinical stage and Gleason score to predict pathological stage in men with localized prostate cancer. The Journal of Urology 1993;150 (1): 110–4.

Partin

Kattan

Subong

Walsh

Wo jno

Oesterling

. Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer: A multi-institutional update. Journal of the American Medical Association 1997;277 (18): 1445–51.

Partin

Mangold

Lamm

Walsh

Epstein

Pearson

. Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin tables) for the new millennium. Urology 2001;58 (6): 843–8.

Makarov

Trock

Humphreys

Mangold

Walsh

Epstein

. 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. Urology 2007;69 (6): 1095–101.

Roupret

Hupertan

Comperat

Drouin

Phé

Xylinas

. Cross-cultural validation of a prognostic tool: Example of the Kattan preoperative nomogram as a predictor of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. British Journal of Urology International 2009;104: 813–8.

Bott

SRJ

Emberton

Sydes

. Prostate cancer staging tables—a predictive model for the UK. British Journal of Medical and Surgical Urology 2008;1 (3): 107–19.

Greene

. AJCC cancer staging manual. 6th ed. Springer Verlag; 2002.

10.

Harrell

Jr Califf

Pryor

Lee

Rosati

. Evaluating the yield of medical tests. Journal of the American Medical Association 1982;247 (18): 2543–6.

11.

Galfano

Novara

Iafrate

Cavalleri

Martignoni

Gardiman

. Mathematical models for prognostic prediction in patients with renal cell carcinoma. Urologia Internationalis 2008;80 (2): 113–23.

12.

Metz

. Basic principles of ROC analysis. Seminars in nuclear medicine, vol. 8. Elsevier; 1978. p. 283–298.

13.

Hanley

McNeil

. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 1982;143 (1): 29.

14.

Song

Kang

Lee

Kim

Ahn

. Nomograms for the prediction of pathologic stage of clinically localized prostate cancer in Korean men. Journal of Korean Medical Science 2005;20 (2): 262–6.

15.

Egawa

Suyama

Arai

Matsumoto

Tsukayama

Kuwao

. A study of pretreatment nomograms to predict pathological stage and biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy for clinically resectable prostate cancer in Japanese men. Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology 2001;31 (2): 74.

16.

Blute

Bergstralh

Partin

Walsh

Kattan

Scardino

. Validation of Partin tables for predicting pathological stage of clinically localized prostate cancer. The Journal of Urology 2000;164 (5): 1591–5.

17.

Kattan

Stapleton

Wheeler

Scardino

. Evaluation of a nomogram used to predict the pathologic stage of clinically localized prostate carcinoma. CAA Cancer Journal for Clinicians 1997;79 (3): 528–37.

18.

Zorn

Capitanio

Jeldres

Arjane

Perrotte

Shariat

. Multi-institutional external validation of seminal vesicle invasion nomograms: Head-to-head comparison of gallina nomogram versus 2007 Partin tables. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics 2009;73 (5): 1461–7.

19.

Bhojani

Salomon

Capitanio

Suardi

Shariat

Jeldres

. External validation of the updated Partin tables in a cohort of French and Italian men. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics 2009;73 (2): 347–52.

20.

Penson

Grossfeld

Henning

Lubeck

Carroll

. How well does the Partin nomogram predict pathological stage after radical prostatectomy in a community based population? Results of the cancer of the prostate strategic urological research endeavor. The Journal of Urology 2002;167 (4): 1653–8.

21.

Graefen

Augustin

Karakiewicz

Hammerer

Haese

Palisaar

. Can predictive models for prostate cancer patients derived in the United States of America be utilized in European patients? A validation study of the Partin tables. European Urology 2003;43 (1): 6–11.

22.

Augustin

Eggert

Wenske

Karakiewicz

Palisaar

Daghofer

. Comparison of accuracy between the Partin tables of 1997 and 2001 to predict final pathological stage in clinically localized prostate cancer. The Journal of Urology 2004;171 (1): 177–81.

23.

Eskicorapci

Karabulut

Turkeri

Baltaci

Cal

Toktas

. Validation of 2001 Partin tables in Turkey: A multicenter study. European Urology 2005;47 (2): 185–9.

24.

Ayyathurai

Ananthakrishnan

Rajasundaram

Knight

Toussi

Srinivasan

. Predictive ability of Partin tables 2001 in a Welsh population. Urologia Internationalis 2006;76 (3): 217–22.

25.

Gao

Ren

Sun

. The newer the better? comparison of the 1997 and 2001 Partin tables for pathologic stage prediction of prostate cancer in China. Urology 2008;72 (5): 1096–101.

26.

Karakiewicz

Bhojani

Capitanio

Reuther

Suardi

Jeldres

. External validation of the updated Partin tables in a cohort of North American men. The Journal of Urology 2008;180 (3): 898–903.

27.

Naito

Kuroiwa

Kinukawa

Goto

Koga

Ogawa

. Validation of Partin tables and development of a preoperative nomogram for Japanese patients with clinically localized prostate cancer using 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology consensus on Gleason grading: Data from the Clinicopathological Research Group for Localized Prostate Cancer. The Journal of Urology 2008;180 (3): 904–10.

28.

Bhojani

Ahyai

Graefen

Capitanio

Suardi

Shariat

. Partin tables cannot accurately predict the pathological stage at radical prostatectomy. European Journal of Surgical Oncology 2009;35 (2): 123–8.

29.

Kattan

. Validating a prognostic model. American Cancer Society 2006;107 (11): 2523–4.

30.

Chun

FKH

Karakiewicz

Briganti

Walz

Kattan

Huland

. 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. British Journal of Urology International 2007;99 (4): 794–800.

31.

Stephenson

Scardino

Eastham

Bianco

Jr Dotan

Fearn

. Preoperative nomogram predicting the 10-year probability of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2006;98: 715–7.

32.

Han

Snow

Brandt

Partin

. Evaluation of artificial neural networks for the prediction of pathological stage in prostate carcinoma. American Cancer Society 2001;91 (April (8)): 1661–6.

33.

Borque

Sanz

Allepuz

Plaza

Gil

Rioja

. The use of neural networks and logistic regression analysis for predicting pathological stage in men undergoing radical prostatectomy: A population based study. The Journal of Urology 2001;166 (5): 1672–8.

34.

Matsui

Egawa

Tsukayama

Terai

Kuwao

Baba

. Artificial neural network analysis for predicting pathological stage of clinically localized prostate cancer in the Japanese population. Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology 2002;32 (12): 530–5.

35.

Antal

Verrelst

Timmerman

Moreau

Van Huffel

De Moor

. Bayesian networks in ovarian cancer diagnosis: potentials and limitations. In: Proceedings of the 13th IEEE symposium on computer-based medical systems. 2000. p. 103–8.

36.

Kabli

McCall

Herrmann

Ong

. Evolved Bayesian networks as a versatile alternative to Partin tables for prostate cancer management. In: Proceedings of the 10th annual conference on genetic and evolutionary computation. 2008. p. 1547–54.