Observational studyHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2025
Evaluation of prognostic models to improve prediction of metastasis in patients following potentially curative treatment for primary colorectal cancer: the PROSPECT trial.
Observational study in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Construction and validation of a prognostic model for 1 year all-cause mortality risk in patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases after HIFU treatment.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Article
- Cancer-specific survival patterns in patients with bone metastasis: a registry-based analysis of 13,742 patients.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite apparently curative treatment, many patients with colorectal cancer develop subsequent metastatic disease. Current prognostic models are criticised because they are based on standard staging and omit novel biomarkers. Improved prognostication is an unmet need. Objectives: To improve prognostication for colorectal cancer by developing a baseline multivariable model of standard clinicopathological predictors, and to then improve prediction via addition of promising novel imaging, genetic and immunohistochemical biomarkers. Design: Prospective multicentre cohort. Setting: Thirteen National Health Service hospitals. Participants: Consecutive adult patients with colorectal cancer. Interventions: Collection of prespecified standard clinicopathological variables and more novel imaging, genetic and immunohistochemical biomarkers, followed by 3-year follow-up to identify postoperative metastasis. Main outcome: Best multivariable prognostic model including perfusion computed tomography compared with tumour/node staging. Secondary outcomes: Additive benefit of perfusion computed tomography and other biomarkers to best baseline model comprising standard clinicopathological predictors; measurement variability between local and central review; biological relationships between perfusion computed tomography and pathology variables. Results: Between 2011 and 2016, 448 participants were recruited; 122 (27%) were withdrawn, leaving 326 (226 male, 100 female; mean ± standard deviation 66 ± 10.7 years); 183 (56%) had rectal cancer. Most cancers were locally advanced [≥ T3 stage, 227 (70%)]; 151 (46%) were node-positive (≥ N1 stage); 306 (94%) had surgery; 79 (24%) had neoadjuvant therapy. The resection margin was positive in 15 (5%); 93 (28%) had venous invasion; 125 (38%) had postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy; 81 (25%, 57 male) developed recurrent disease. Prediction of recurrent disease by the baseline clinicopathological time-to-event Weibull multivariable model (age, sex, tumour/node stage, tumour size and location, treatment, venous invasion) was superior to tumour/node staging: sensitivity: 0.57 (95% confidence interval 0.45 to 0.68), specificity 0.74 (95% confidence interval 0.68 to 0.79) versus sensitivity 0.56 (95% confidence interval 0.44 to 0.67), specificity 0.58 (95% confidence interval 0.51 to 0.64), respectively. Addition of perfusion computed tomography variables did not improve prediction significantly: Limitations: The number of patients developing metastasis was lower than expected from historical data. Our findings should not be overinterpreted. While the baseline model was superior to tumour/node staging, any clinical utility needs definition in daily practice. Conclusions: A prognostic model of standard clinicopathological variables outperformed tumour/node staging, but novel biomarkers did not improve prediction significantly. Biomarkers that appear promising in small single-centre studies may contribute nothing substantial to prognostication when evaluated rigorously. Future work: It would be desirable for other researchers to externally evaluate the baseline model. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN95037515. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 09/22/49) and is published in full in
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.