Trial reportJAMA network open2021
Comparison of Joint and Landmark Modeling for Predicting Cancer Progression in Men With Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Secondary Post Hoc Analysis of the PREVAIL Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Twelve-Month Metastatic State as a Landmark-Based Prognostic Stratifier in Metastatic Sarcoma.Cancers · 2026Article
- Evaluating the application of dynamic prediction models in oncological prognostic studies with repeated measurement predictors.NPJ precision oncology · 2025Article
- Advances in Current Treatment Paradigms for Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- The reporting quality and methodological quality of dynamic prediction models for cancer prognosis.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Consecutive prediction of adverse maternal outcomes of preeclampsia, using the PIERS-ML and fullPIERS models: A multicountry prospective observational study.PLoS medicine · 2025Observational
- Development and internal validation of a dynamic fall risk prediction and monitoring tool in aged care using routinely collected electronic health data: a landmarking approach.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Article
- Prognostic Value of the Modeled Prostate-Specific Antigen KELIM Confirmation in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Treated With Taxanes in FIRSTANA.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2024Article
- Joint models for dynamic prediction in localised prostate cancer: a literature review.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 9 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Dynamic prediction models may help predict radiographic disease progression in advanced prostate cancer. Objective: To assess whether dynamic prediction models aid prognosis of radiographic progression risk, using ongoing longitudinal prostate-specific antigen (PSA) assessments. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prognostic study used data from the PREVAIL study to compare dynamic models for predicting disease progression. The PREVAIL study was a phase 3, multinational, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial of enzalutamide for prostate cancer conducted from September 2010 to September 2012. A total of 773 men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) who had never received chemotherapy and had no baseline visceral disease were treated with enzalutamide. For illustration, 4 patients were selected based on PSA kinetics or PSA response in case studies. Data were analyzed from July 2018 to September 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Landmark and joint models were applied to dynamically predict radiographic progression-free survival (PFS) using longitudinal PSA profile, baseline PSA, lactate dehydrogenase, and hemoglobin levels. The main outcome was radiographic PFS as predicted using landmark and joint models. Current PSA and PSA change were considered longitudinal biomarkers possibly associated with radiographic PFS. Predictive performance was evaluated using Brier score for overall prediction errors (PEs) and area under the curve (AUC) for model discriminative capability. Case studies were illustrated using dynamic prediction plots. Results: A total of 763 men with metastatic CRPC treated with enzalutamide (mean [SD] age, 71.2 [8.5] years; mean [SD] body mass index [calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared], 28.4 [4.6]) were included in the analysis. Current PSA and PSA change were associated with radiographic PFS in all models. Adding the PSA slope, compared with the landmark models using current PSA alone, improved the prediction of 5-month prospect of radiographic progression, with relative gains of 5.7% in prediction (PE [SE], 0.132 [0.008] vs 0.140 [0.008]) and 7.7% in discrimination (AUC [SE], 0.800 [0.018] vs 0.743 [0.018]) at month 10. In joint models with linear vs nonlinear PSA, prediction of 5-month risk of radiographic progression was improved when PSA trajectories were not assumed to be linear, with 8.0% relative gain in prediction (PE [SE], 0.150 [0.006] vs 0.138 [0.005]) and 19.4% relative gain in discrimination (AUC [SE], 0.653 [0.022] vs 0.780 [0.016]) at month 10. Predictions were affected by amount of marker information accumulated and prespecified assumptions. PSA changes affected progression risk more strongly at later vs earlier follow-up. Conclusions and Relevance: This prognostic study found that prediction of radiographic PFS was improved when longitudinal PSA information was added to baseline variables. In a population of patients with metastatic CRPC, dynamic predictions using landmark or joint models may help identify patients at risk of progression.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.