1,721,210 research outputs found
The CAPRA-S score
Full text linkBackgroundThe authors previously developed and validated the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score to predict prostate cancer recurrence based on pretreatment clinical data. They aimed to develop a similar postsurgical score with improved accuracy via incorporation of pathologic data.MethodsA total of 3837 prostatectomy patients in the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE™) national disease registry were analyzed. Cox regression was used to determine the predictive power of preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA), pathologic Gleason score (pGS), surgical margins (SM), extracapsular extension (ECE), seminal vesicle invasion (SVI), and lymph node invasion (LNI). Points were assigned based on the relative weights of these variables in predicting recurrence. The new postsurgical score (CAPRA-S) was tested and compared with a commonly cited nomogram with proportional hazards analysis, concordance (c) index, calibration plots, and decision-curve analysis.ResultsRecurrence appeared in 16.8% of the men; actuarial progression-free probability at 5 years was 78.0%. The CAPRA-S was determined by adding up to 3 points for PSA, up to 3 points for pGS, 1 point each for ECE and LNI, and 2 points each for SM and SVI. The hazard ratio for each point increase in CAPRA-S score was 1.54 (95% confidence interval, 1.49-1.59), indicating a 2.4-fold increase in risk for each 2-point increase in score. The CAPRA-S c-index was 0.77, substantially higher than 0.66 for the pretreatment CAPRA score and comparable to 0.76 for the nomogram. The CAPRA-S score performed better in both calibration and decision curve analyses.ConclusionsThe CAPRA-S offers good discriminatory accuracy, calibration, and ease of calculation for clinical and research settings
Value of NADiA ProsVue on the CAPRA-S nomogram for predicting postprostatectomy clinical recurrence.
No full text 139 Background: The post-radical prostatectomy (RP) CAPRA-S nomogram stratifies men into low, intermediate and high risk groups for biochemical recurrence (BCR) and proved accurate for predicting 3 and 5 year BCR rates in a large study cohort. NADiA ProsVue is a prognostic test that identifies men at reduced risk of clinically recurrent prostate cancer when used with traditional risk factors. We assessed ProsVue, a prognostic test for identifying post-RP clinical recurrence, in an independent population of men classified into low, intermediate and high CAPRA-S risk groups. Methods: The 304 men in the ProsVue 510(k) study were categorized into low (scores 0-2), intermediate (3-5) and high (≥6) CAPRA-S risk groups. Men were categorized as “at reduced risk” or “not at reduced risk” using a 2.0 pg/mL/month ProsVue cutpoint. Clinical recurrence was defined by positive biopsy or imaging results or death due to prostate cancer. Clinical progression-free survival (cPFS) was determined between subgroups using univariate Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses and Wilcoxon and log-rank p values were reported. Results: Recurrence occurred in 8/156 (5.1%), 20/93 (21.5%) and 32/55 (58.2%) of men in the low, intermediate, and high CAPRA-S risk groups, respectively (P<0.0001). After 3, 5, 8 and 15 year followup, men in all CAPRA-S risk groups with ProsVue results ≤2.0 had significantly longer cPFS compared to men with results >2.0. The differences are marked as early as 3 years post-RP in the intermediate and high risk groups. Conclusions: ProsVue added significant prognostic value for identifying risk of clinical recurrence within low, intermediate and high CAPRA-S risk groups. ProsVue is the strongest independent predictor of clinical recurrence of prostate cancer post-RP. [Table: see text] </jats:p
Multi-institutional Validation of the CAPRA-S Score to Predict Disease Recurrence and Mortality After Radical Prostatectomy
Full text linkBackgroundThe University of California, San Francisco, Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment Postsurgical (CAPRA-S) score uses pathologic data from radical prostatectomy (RP) to predict prostate cancer recurrence and mortality. However, this clinical tool has never been validated externally.ObjectiveTo validate CAPRA-S in a large, multi-institutional, external database.Design, setting, and participantsThe Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital (SEARCH) database consists of 2892 men who underwent RP from 2001 to 2011. With a median follow-up of 58 mo, 2670 men (92%) had complete data to calculate a CAPRA-S score.InterventionRP.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisThe main outcome was biochemical recurrence. Performance of CAPRA-S in detecting recurrence was assessed and compared with a validated postoperative nomogram by concordance index (c-index), calibration plots, and decision curve analysis. Prediction of cancer-specific mortality was assessed by Kaplan-Meier analysis and the c-index.Results and limitationsThe mean age was 62 yr (standard deviation: 6.3), and 34.3% of men had recurrence. The 5-yr progression-free probability for those patients with a CAPRA-S score of 0-2, 3-5, and 6-10 (defining low, intermediate, and high risk) was 72%, 39%, and 17%, respectively. The CAPRA-S c-index was 0.73 in this validation set, compared with a c-index of 0.72 for the Stephenson nomogram. Although CAPRA-S was optimistic in predicting the likelihood of being free of recurrence at 5 yr, it outperformed the Stephenson nomogram on both calibration plots and decision curve analysis. The c-index for predicting cancer-specific mortality was 0.85, with the caveat that this number is based on only 61 events.ConclusionsIn this external validation, the CAPRA-S score predicted recurrence and mortality after RP with a c-index >0.70. The score is an effective prognostic tool that may aid in determining the need for adjuvant therapy
Accuracy of CAPRA-S Score for Predicting Long-Term Biochemical Progression After Radical Prostatectomy
No full textThe Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment Postsurgical (CAPRA-S) score is a tool to stratify patients into groups according to their risk for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Retrospective analysis was performed of data from 479 patients. The CAPRA-S score is a useful tool in patients to classify the risk of long-term biochemical progression of patients, thus helping decide if adjuvant treatment should be required.Background: The Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment Postsurgical (CAPRA-S) score is a tool to stratify patients into groups according to their risk for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of the CAPRA-S score for predicting biochemical progression at 5 and 10 years in our cohort of patients after radical prostatectomy. Patients and Methods: Between June 2004 and December 2015, radical prostatectomy was performed as the main treatment option for patients with localized prostate cancer. Patients who had received adjuvant or neoadjuvant treatment were excluded from this study. Biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy was considered in patients by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) > 0.1 ng/mL after surgery (biochemical persistence) and by at least 2 determinations of PSA > 0.2 ng/mL in those patients with initial undetectable postoperative PSA any time during their follow-up (biochemical failure). Cox proportional hazard model and Kaplan-Meier analysis were used for the statistical analysis. Results: Of 531 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy, 479 met the inclusion criteria. Mean follow-up was 85 months (min-max, 13-153 months). The rate of biochemical progression -free survival at 10 years was 84.2%, 55.1%, and 32.8%, respectively, for high-, intermediate-, and low-risk patients according to the CAPRA-S score. The concordance index for CAPRA-S predicting biochemical progression at 5 years was 0.71 and at 10 years was 0.70. Conclusion: The CAPRA-S score is a useful and easy-to-use tool in patients after radical prostatectomy to classify their risk for biochemical progression, thus helping decide if adjuvant treatment should be required.e649e64550,972,695Q1Q2SCI
Combined analysis of CRMP4 methylation levels and CAPRA-S score predicts metastasis and outcomes in prostate cancer patients
No full textThe present study analyzed the predictive value of combined analysis of collapsin response mediator protein 4 (CRMP4) methylation levels and the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA-S) Postsurgical score of patients who required adjuvant hormone therapy (AHT) after radical prostatectomy (RP). We retrospectively analyzed 305 patients with prostate cancer (PCa) who received RP and subsequent androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Two hundred and thirty patients with clinically high-risk PCa underwent immediate ADT, and 75 patients with intermediate risk PCa underwent deferred ADT. CRMP4 methylation levels in biopsies were determined, and CAPRA-S scores were calculated. In the deferred ADT group, the values of the hazard ratios for tumor progression and cancer-specific mortality (CSM) in patients with ≥15% CRMP4 methylation were 6.81 (95% CI: 2.34-19.80) and 12.83 (95% CI: 2.16-26.10), respectively. Receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis indicated that CRMP4 methylation levels ≥15% served as a significant prognostic marker of tumor progression and CSM. In the immediate ADT group, CAPRA-S scores ≥6 and CRMP4 methylation levels ≥15% were independent predictors of these outcomes (uni- and multi-variable Cox regression analyses). The differences in the 5-year progression-free survival between each combination were statistically significant. Combining CAPRA-S score and CRMP4 methylation levels improved the area under the curve compared with the CRMP4 or CAPRA-S model. Therefore, CRMP4 methylation levels ≥15% were significantly associated with a poor prognosis and their combination with CAPRA-S score accurately predicted tumor progression and metastasis for patients requiring AHT after RP
Comparación del riesgo de progresión entre factores prequirúrgicos según D'amico y post-quirúrgicos de CAPRA-S en pacientes llevados a prostatectomía radical más linfadenectomía pélvica ampliada por cáncer de próstata
Full text linkIntroducción y Objetivo: El cáncer de próstata supone un problema de salud pública, siendo la segunda causa de muerte por cáncer en hombres de países occidentales. El objetivo de nuestro estudio es comparar dos herramientas empleadas para predecir riesgo de progresión en pacientes con cáncer de próstata llevados a tratamiento quirúrgico primario. Materiales y Métodos: Estudio observacional, retrospectivo y descriptivo que incluyó 450 pacientes a quienes se les realizó prostatectomía radical más linfadenectomía pélvica ampliada en el Instituto Nacional de Cancerología entre Enero de 2007 y Julio de 2014. Resultados: En el 45.6% de la población en estudio se observó una variación del riesgo de progresión, encontrando una sub-estimación del riesgo del 22,7% en el sistema D’amico con respecto del CAPRA-S. Conclusiones: CAPRA-S posee un mejor rendimiento para estimación del riesgo, comparado con D’amico, el cual puede sub-estimar este riesgo según los resultados del presente estudioAbstract. Introduction and Objective: Prostate cancer is a public health problem, being the second leading cause of cancer death in men in Western countries. The aim of our study is to compare two tools used to predict risk of progression in patients with prostate primary surgical treatment carried cancer. Materials and Methods: An observational, retrospective, descriptive study that included 450 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy extended pelvic lymphadenectomy at the National Cancer Institute between January 2007 and July 2014. Results: 45.6% of the population in study a variation in the risk of progression was observed, finding an underestimation of the risk of 22.7% in the D'amico system regarding the CAPRA-S. Conclusions: CAPRA-S has better performance for risk estimation compared to D'amico, which may sub-estimated risk according to the results of this studyOtr
Two-year quality of life after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy according to pentafecta criteria and cancer of the prostate risk assessment (CAPRA-S)
No full textThe quality of life (QoL) of men with optimal outcomes after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is largely unexplored. Thus we assessed meaningful changes of QoL measured with the EORTC QLQ-C30 24 months after RARP according to postsurgical Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score (CAPRA-S) and pentafecta criteria. 2871 prostate cancer (PCa) patients with completed EORTC QLQ-C30 were stratified according to CAPRA-S, pentafecta (erectile function recovery, urinary continence recovery, biochemical-recurrence-free survival (BFS), negative surgical margins) and 90-day Clavien–Dindo-complications (CDC) ≤ 3a. Multivariable logistic regression analyses (LRM) aimed to predict improvement of EORTC QoL. Mean preoperative QoL values did not significantly differ between CAPRA-S low- (LR) vs. high-risk (HR, 75.7 vs. 75.2; p = 0.7) and pentafecta vs. non-pentafecta groups (75.6 vs. 75.2; p = 0.6). After RARP, stable QoL rates for CAPRA-S LR vs. HR and pentafecta were 30, 26 and 30%, respectively. Corresponding improved QoL rates were 44, 32 and 47%. In LRM, CAPRA-S and pentafecta criteria were independent predictors of improved QoL. We conclude that most favourable combined outcomes after RARP might confer stable or even improved QoL but up to one third of patients might experience deterioration. This warrants further investigation how to capture the underlying cause and to address and potentially solve these perceived negative effects despite successful RARP
Two-year quality of life after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy according to pentafecta criteria and cancer of the prostate risk assessment (CAPRA-S)
No full textThe quality of life (QoL) of men with optimal outcomes after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is largely unexplored. Thus we assessed meaningful changes of QoL measured with the EORTC QLQ-C30 24 months after RARP according to postsurgical Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score (CAPRA-S) and pentafecta criteria. 2871 prostate cancer (PCa) patients with completed EORTC QLQ-C30 were stratified according to CAPRA-S, pentafecta (erectile function recovery, urinary continence recovery, biochemical-recurrence-free survival (BFS), negative surgical margins) and 90-day Clavien–Dindo-complications (CDC) ≤ 3a. Multivariable logistic regression analyses (LRM) aimed to predict improvement of EORTC QoL. Mean preoperative QoL values did not significantly differ between CAPRA-S low- (LR) vs. high-risk (HR, 75.7 vs. 75.2; p = 0.7) and pentafecta vs. non-pentafecta groups (75.6 vs. 75.2; p = 0.6). After RARP, stable QoL rates for CAPRA-S LR vs. HR and pentafecta were 30, 26 and 30%, respectively. Corresponding improved QoL rates were 44, 32 and 47%. In LRM, CAPRA-S and pentafecta criteria were independent predictors of improved QoL. We conclude that most favourable combined outcomes after RARP might confer stable or even improved QoL but up to one third of patients might experience deterioration. This warrants further investigation how to capture the underlying cause and to address and potentially solve these perceived negative effects despite successful RARP
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
