Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33952288›Full record

ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2021

An external validation of the Candiolo nomogram in a cohort of prostate cancer patients treated by external-beam radiotherapy.

Domenico Gabriele, Alessia Guarneri, Sara Bartoncini, Fernando Munoz, Matteo Tamponi, Filippo Russo, Georgios Stamatakos, Caterina Guiot, Daniele Regge, Umberto Ricardi

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Domenico GabrieleDepartment of Radiology, Città della Salute e della Scienza Hospital, University of Torino, via Genova 3, 10126, Turin, Italy. gabrielepda@alice.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6705-5661
Alessia GuarneriDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Torino, Città della Salute e della Scienza Hospital, Turin, Italy.
Sara BartonciniDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Torino, Città della Salute e della Scienza Hospital, Turin, Italy.
Fernando MunozDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Regional Hospital of Aosta, Aosta, Italy.
Matteo TamponiSardinian Regional Health Service, Sassari, Italy.
Filippo RussoDepartment of Radiology, FPO-IRCCS Candiolo Cancer Institute, Candiolo, Italy.
Georgios StamatakosInstitute of Communication and Computer Systems, National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Caterina GuiotDepartment of Neuroscience, University of Torino, Turin, Italy.
Daniele ReggeDepartment of Radiology, Città della Salute e della Scienza Hospital, University of Torino, via Genova 3, 10126, Turin, Italy.
Umberto RicardiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Torino, Città della Salute e della Scienza Hospital, Turin, Italy.

Funding

Seventh Framework Programme 600841
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundthe aim of this study is to perform an external validation for the Candiolo nomogram, a predictive algorithm of biochemical and clinical recurrences in prostate cancer patients treated by radical Radiotherapy, published in 2016 on the journal "Radiation Oncology".

methods561 patients, treated by Radiotherapy with curative intent between 2003 and 2012, were classified according to the five risk-classes of the Candiolo nomogram and the three risk-classes of the D'Amico classification for comparison. Patients were treated with a mean prostatic dose of 77.7 Gy and a combined treatment with Androgen-Deprivation-Therapy in 76% of cases. The end-points of the study were biochemical-progression-free-survival (bPFS) and clinical-Progression-Free-Survival (cPFS). With a median follow-up of 50 months, 56 patients (10%) had a biochemical relapse, and 30 patients (5.4%) a clinical progression. The cases were divided according to D'Amico in low-risk 21%, intermediate 40%, high-risk 39%; according to Candiolo very-low-risk 24%, low 37%, intermediate 24%, high 10%, very-high-risk 5%. Statistically, the Kaplan-Meier survival curves were processed and compared using Log-Rank tests and Harrell-C concordance index.

resultsThe 5-year bPFS for the Candiolo risk-classes range between 98 and 38%, and the 5-year cPFS between 98 and 50% for very-low and very-high-risk, respectively. The Candiolo nomogram is highly significant for the stratification of both bPFS and cPFS (P < 0.0001), as well as the D'Amico classification (P = 0.004 and P = 0.001, respectively). For the Candiolo nomogram, the C indexes for bPFS and cPFS are 75 and 80%, respectively, while for D'Amico classification they are 64 and 69%, respectively. The Candiolo nomogram can identify a greater number of patients with low and very-low-risk prostate cancer (61% versus 21% according to D'Amico) and it better picks out patients with high and very-high-risk of recurrence, equal to only 15% of the total cases but subject to 48% (27/56) of biochemical relapses and 63% (19/30) of clinical progressions.

conclusionsthe external validation of the Candiolo nomogram was overall successful with C indexes approximately 10% higher than the D'Amico control classification for bPFS and cPFS. Therefore, its clinical use is justified in prostate cancer patients before radical Radiotherapy. Trial registration Retrospectively registered.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsNomogramsAgedAged, 80 and overDisease ProgressionHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalOrgans at RiskPrognosisProstatic NeoplasmsRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentExternal validationNomogramProstate cancerRadiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID33952288
PMCPMC8097839

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.