umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
The Cambridge Prognostic Groups for improved prediction of disease mortality at diagnosis in primary non-metastatic prostate cancer: a validation study
Show others and affiliations
2018 (English)In: BMC Medicine, ISSN 1741-7015, E-ISSN 1741-7015, Vol. 16, article id 31Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background: The purpose of this study is to validate a new five-tiered prognostic classification system to better discriminate cancer-specific mortality in men diagnosed with primary non-metastatic prostate cancer.

Methods: We applied a recently described five-strata model, the Cambridge Prognostic Groups (CPGs 1-5), in two international cohorts and tested prognostic performance against the current standard three-strata classification of low-, intermediate- or high-risk disease. Diagnostic clinico-pathological data for men obtained from the Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden (PCBaSe) and the Singapore Health Study were used. The main outcome measure was prostate cancer mortality (PCM) stratified by age group and treatment modality.

Results: The PCBaSe cohort included 72,337 men, of whom 7162 died of prostate cancer. The CPG model successfully classified men with different risks of PCM with competing risk regression confirming significant intergroup distinction (p < 0.0001). The CPGs were significantly better at stratified prediction of PCM compared to the current three-tiered system (concordance index (C-index) 0.81 vs. 0.77, p < 0.0001). This superiority was maintained for every age group division (p < 0.0001). Also in the ethnically different Singapore cohort of 2550 men with 142 prostate cancer deaths, the CPG model outperformed the three strata categories (C-index 0.79 vs. 0.76, p < 0.0001). The model also retained superior prognostic discrimination in the treatment sub-groups: radical prostatectomy (n =3D 20,586), C-index 0.77 vs. 074; radiotherapy (n =3D 11,872), C-index 0.73 vs. 0.69; and conservative management (n =3D 14,950), C-index 0.74 vs. 0.73. The CPG groups that sub-divided the old intermediate-risk (CPG2 vs. CPG3) and high-risk categories (CPG4 vs. CPG5) significantly discriminated PCM outcomes after radical therapy or conservative management (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions: This validation study of nearly 75,000 men confirms that the CPG five-tiered prognostic model has superior discrimination compared to the three-tiered model in predicting prostate cancer death across different age and treatment groups. Crucially, it identifies distinct sub-groups of men within the old intermediate-risk and high-risk criteria who have very different prognostic outcomes. We therefore propose adoption of the CPG model as a simple-to-use but more accurate prognostic stratification tool to help guide management for men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
BioMed Central, 2018. Vol. 16, article id 31
Keywords [en]
Prostate cancer, Prognostic prediction, Cancer-specific mortality, Cambridge Prognostic Groups, Non-metastatic disease, Stratification, All-cause mortality, Competing risks, Improved treatment section, Treatment selection
National Category
Urology and Nephrology Cancer and Oncology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-146163DOI: 10.1186/s12916-018-1019-5ISI: 000426402000003PubMedID: 29490658OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-146163DiVA, id: diva2:1206213
Available from: 2018-05-16 Created: 2018-05-16 Last updated: 2018-06-09Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(1969 kB)72 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 1969 kBChecksum SHA-512
4589d5d7536862f62ccf28f4e97a773b88ba86be5d4007944766cad3fe78f4015e67514aed901c5dd38b130d4b20f188bf0bb20b4ab8358b586a529b238cf5fa
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Authority records BETA

Stattin, Pär

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Stattin, Pär
By organisation
Urology and Andrology
In the same journal
BMC Medicine
Urology and NephrologyCancer and Oncology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 72 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 127 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf