External validation of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre and Briganti nomograms for the prediction of lymph node involvement of prostate cancer using clinical stage assessed by magnetic resonance imaging.
#PCSM
#ProstateCancer
#uroonc
extended pelvic lymph node dissection
external validation
lymph node involvement
nomogram
prostate cancer
staging
Journal
BJU international
ISSN: 1464-410X
Titre abrégé: BJU Int
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100886721
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2021
08 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
26
2
2021
medline:
30
11
2021
entrez:
25
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate the impact of using clinical stage assessed by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) on the performance of two established nomograms for the prediction of pelvic lymph node involvement (LNI) in patients with prostate cancer. Patients undergoing robot-assisted extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) from 2015 to 2019 at three teaching hospitals were retrospectively evaluated. Risk of LNI was calculated four times for each patient, using clinical tumour stage (T-stage) assessed by digital rectal examination (DRE) and by mpMRI, in the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre (MSKCC; 2018) and Briganti (2012) nomograms. Discrimination (area under the curve [AUC]), calibration, and the net benefit of these four strategies were assessed and compared. A total of 1062 patients were included, of whom 301 (28%) had histologically proven LNI. Using DRE T-stage resulted in AUCs of 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-0.72) for the MSKCC and 0.73 (95% CI 0.72-0.74) for the Briganti nomogram. Using mpMRI T-stage, the AUCs were 0.72 (95% CI 0.71-0.73) for the MSKCC and 0.75 (95% CI 0.74-0.76) for the Briganti nomogram. mpMRI T-stage resulted in equivalent calibration compared with DRE T-stage. Combined use of mpMRI T-stage and the Briganti 2012 nomogram was shown to be superior in terms of AUC, calibration, and net benefit. Use of mpMRI T-stage led to increased sensitivity for the detection of LNI for all risk thresholds in both models, countered by a decreased specificity, compared with DRE T-stage. T-stage as assessed by mpMRI is an appropriate alternative for T-stage assessed by DRE to determine nomogram-based risk of LNI in patients with prostate cancer, and was associated with improved model performance of both the MSKCC 2018 and Briganti 2012 nomograms.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Validation Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
236-243Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors BJU International © 2021 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E et al. EAU - ESTRO - ESUR - SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer 2019; presented at the EAU Annual Congress Barcelona 2019. Arnhem, The Netherlands: European Association of Urology Guidelines Office
Wilczak W, Wittmer C, Clauditz T et al. Marked prognostic impact of minimal lymphatic tumor spread in prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2018; 74: 376-86
Luiting HB, van Leeuwen PJ, Busstra MB et al. Use of gallium-68 prostate-specific membrane antigen positron-emission tomography for detecting lymph node metastases in primary and recurrent prostate cancer and location of recurrence after radical prostatectomy: an overview of the current literature. BJU Int 2020; 125: 206-14
Perera M, Papa N, Roberts M et al. Gallium-68 prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography in advanced prostate cancer-updated diagnostic utility, sensitivity, specificity, and distribution of prostate-specific membrane antigen-avid lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2020; 77: 403-17
Fossati N, Willemse PM, Van den Broeck T et al. The benefits and harms of different extents of lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2017; 72: 84-109
Oderda M, Diamand R, Albisinni S et al. Indications for and complications of pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer: accuracy of available nomograms for the prediction of lymph node invasion. BJU Int 2021; 127: 318-25
Carroll PR, Parsons JK, Andriole G et al. NCCN guidelines insights: prostate cancer early detection, version 2.2016. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2016; 14: 509-19
Hueting TA, Cornel EB, Somford DM et al. External validation of models predicting the probability of lymph node involvement in prostate cancer patients. Eur Urol Oncol 2018; 1: 411-7
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Pre-radical prostatectomy tool to predict probability of lymph node involvement in prostate cancer patients. Available at: www.mskcc.org/nomograms/prostate/pre_op. Accessed June 15, 2020
Briganti A, Larcher A, Abdollah F et al. Updated nomogram predicting lymph node invasion in patients with prostate cancer undergoing extended pelvic lymph node dissection: the essential importance of percentage of positive cores. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 480-7
Bjurlin MA, Carroll PR, Eggener S et al. Update of the standard operating procedure on the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis, staging and management of prostate cancer. J Urol 2020; 203: 706-12
de Rooij M, Hamoen EH, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM. Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for local staging of prostate cancer: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2016; 70: 233-45
Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD et al. A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the gleason score. Eur Urol 2016; 69: 428-35
Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A eds. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 7th edn. New York, NY: Springer, 2010
Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging - reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 2016; 69: 16-40
Mattei A, Fuechsel FG, Bhatta Dhar N et al. The template of the primary lymphatic landing sites of the prostate should be revisited: results of a multimodality mapping study. Eur Urol 2008; 53: 118-25
Berney DM, Wheeler TM, Grignon DJ et al. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working group 4: seminal vesicles and lymph nodes. Mod Pathol 2011; 24: 39-47
Moons KG, Altman DG, Reitsma JB et al. Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2015; 162: 1-73
Verbakel J, Steyerberg EW, Uno H et al. ROC curves for clinical prediction models part 1. ROC plots showed no added value above the AUC when evaluating the performance of clinical prediction models. J Clin Epidemiol 2020; 126: 207-16
Vickers AJ, Elkin EB. Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med Decis Making 2006; 26: 565-74
Van Buuren S, Groothuis-Oudshoorn K. Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. J Stat Soft 2011; 45: 1-67
Porpiglia F, Manfredi M, Mele F et al. Indication to pelvic lymph nodes dissection for prostate cancer: the role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging when the risk of lymph nodes invasion according to Briganti updated nomogram is <5. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2018; 21: 85-91
Huang C, Song G, Wang H et al. Preoperative PI-RADS version 2 scores helps improve accuracy of clinical nomograms for predicting pelvic lymph node metastasis at radical prostatectomy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2020; 23: 116-26
Gandaglia G, Ploussard G, Valerio M et al. A novel nomogram to identify candidates for extended pelvic lymph node dissection among patients with clinically localized prostate cancer diagnosed with magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic biopsies. Eur Urol 2019; 75: 506-14
Draulans C, Everaerts W, Isebaert S et al. Development and external validation of a mpMRI- and ISUP-based add-on prediction tool to identity prostate cancer candidates for pelvic lymph node dissection. J Urol 2020; 203: 713-8
Gandaglia G, Martini A, Ploussard G et al. External validation of the 2019 briganti nomogram for the identification of prostate cancer patients who should be considered for an extended pelvic lymph node dissection. Eur Urol 2020; 78: 138-42
Paner GP, Stadler WM, Hansel DE, Montironi R, Lin DW, Amin MB. Updates in the eighth edition of the tumor-node-metastasis staging classification for urologic cancers. Eur Urol 2018; 73: 560-9
Soeterik TFW, Van Melick HHE, Dijksman LM et al. Multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging should be preferred over digital rectal examination for prostate cancer local staging and disease risk classification. Urology 2021; 147: 205-12
Angulo JC, Montie JE, Bukowsky T et al. Interobserver consistency of digital rectal examination in clinical staging of localized prostatic carcinoma. Urol Oncol 1995; 1: 199-205