World Journal of Urology

, Volume 33, Issue 3, pp 381–388 | Cite as

Decision curve analysis and external validation of the postoperative Karakiewicz nomogram for renal cell carcinoma based on a large single-center study cohort

  • Stefan Zastrow
  • Sabine Brookman-May
  • Thi Anh Phuong Cong
  • Stanislaw Jurk
  • Immanuel von Bar
  • Vladimir Novotny
  • Manfred Wirth
Original Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Purpose

To predict outcome of patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) who undergo surgical therapy, risk models and nomograms are valuable tools. External validation on independent datasets is crucial for evaluating accuracy and generalizability of these models. The objective of the present study was to externally validate the postoperative nomogram developed by Karakiewicz et al. for prediction of cancer-specific survival.

Methods

A total of 1,480 consecutive patients with a median follow-up of 82 months (IQR 46–128) were included into this analysis with 268 RCC-specific deaths. Nomogram-estimated survival probabilities were compared with survival probabilities of the actual cohort, and concordance indices were calculated. Calibration plots and decision curve analyses were used for evaluating calibration and clinical net benefit of the nomogram.

Results

Concordance between predictions of the nomogram and survival rates of the cohort was 0.911 after 12, 0.909 after 24 months and 0.896 after 60 months. Comparison of predicted probabilities and actual survival estimates with calibration plots showed an overestimation of tumor-specific survival based on nomogram predictions of high-risk patients, although calibration plots showed a reasonable calibration for probability ranges of interest. Decision curve analysis showed a positive net benefit of nomogram predictions for our patient cohort.

Conclusion

The postoperative Karakiewicz nomogram provides a good concordance in this external cohort and is reasonably calibrated. It may overestimate tumor-specific survival in high-risk patients, which should be kept in mind when counseling patients. A positive net benefit of nomogram predictions was proven.

Keywords

Renal cell carcinoma Prognosis prediction Nomogram External validation Decision curve analysis 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical standard

The authors declare that the study has been approved by the appropriate ethics committee.

References

  1. 1.
    Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A (2012) Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 62:10–29. doi: 10.3322/caac.20138 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ljungberg B, Cowan NC, Hanbury DC et al (2010) EAU guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: the 2010 update. Eur Urol 58:398–406. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.06.032 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hollingsworth JM, Miller DC, Daignault S, Hollenbeck BK (2007) Five-year survival after surgical treatment for kidney cancer: a population-based competing risk analysis. Cancer 109:1763–1768. doi: 10.1002/cncr.22600 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Volpe A, Patard J (2010) Prognostic factors in renal cell carcinoma. World J Urol 28:319–327CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Galfano A, Novara G, Iafrate M et al (2008) Mathematical models for prognostic prediction in patients with renal cell carcinoma. Urol Int 80:113–123. doi: 10.1159/000112599 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vickers AJ, Cronin AM, Elkin EB, Gonen M (2008) Extensions to decision curve analysis, a novel method for evaluating diagnostic tests, prediction models and molecular markers. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 8:53. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-8-53 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Karakiewicz PI, Briganti A, Chun FK-H et al (2007) Multi-institutional validation of a new renal cancer-specific survival nomogram. J Clin Oncol 25:1316–1322. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.06.1218 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Liu Z, Lv J, Ding K et al (2008) Validation of the current prognostic models for nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma after nephrectomy in Chinese population: A 15-year single center experience. Int J Urol 16:268–273. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2008.02229.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tan M-H, Li H, Choong CV et al (2011) The Karakiewicz nomogram is the most useful clinical predictor for survival outcomes in patients with localized renal cell carcinoma. Cancer 117:5314–5324. doi: 10.1002/cncr.26193 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cindolo L, Chiodini P, Brookman-May S et al (2013) Assessing the accuracy and generalizability of the preoperative and postoperative Karakiewicz nomograms for renal cell carcinoma: results from a multicentre European and US study. BJU Int 112:578–584. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11670.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Greene FL, Cancer AJCO, Society AC (2002) AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sobin L, Gospodarowicz M, Wittekind C (2010) TNM classification of malignant tumors, 7 ed. UICC International Union Against CancerGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fuhrman SA, Lasky LC, Limas C (1982) Prognostic significance of morphologic parameters in renal cell carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 6:655–663CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kovacs G, Akhtar M, Beckwith BJ, et al. (1997) The Heidelberg classification of renal cell tumours. J Pathol 183:131–133. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9896(199710)183:2<131::AID-PATH931>3.0.CO;2-G
  15. 15.
    Harrell FE (2001) Regression modeling strategies: with applications to linear models, logistic regression and survival analysis, 2nd edn. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Meskawi M, Sun M, Trinh Q-D et al (2012) A review of integrated staging systems for renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol 62:303–314. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.04.049 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kattan MW, Reuter V, Motzer RJ et al (2001) A postoperative prognostic nomogram for renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 166:63–67CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sorbellini M, Kattan MW, Snyder ME et al (2005) A postoperative prognostic nomogram predicting recurrence for patients with conventional clear cell renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 173:48–51. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000148261.19532.2c CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Leibovich BC, Blute ML, Cheville JC et al (2003) Prediction of progression after radical nephrectomy for patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma: a stratification tool for prospective clinical trials. Cancer 97:1663–1671. doi: 10.1002/cncr.11234 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brookman-May S, May M, Shariat SF et al (2012) Features associated with recurrence beyond 5 years after nephrectomy and nephron-sparing surgery for renal cell carcinoma: development and internal validation of a risk model (PRELANE score) to predict late recurrence based on a large multicenter database (CORONA/SATURN project). Eur Urol 1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.06.030
  21. 21.
    Novara G, Ficarra V, Antonelli A et al (2010) Validation of the 2009 TNM version in a large multi-institutional cohort of patients treated for renal cell carcinoma: are further improvements needed? Eur Urol 58:588–595. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.07.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Novara G, Martignoni G, Artibani W, Ficarra V (2007) Grading systems in renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 177:430–436CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan Zastrow
    • 1
  • Sabine Brookman-May
    • 2
  • Thi Anh Phuong Cong
    • 1
  • Stanislaw Jurk
    • 1
  • Immanuel von Bar
    • 1
  • Vladimir Novotny
    • 1
  • Manfred Wirth
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of UrologyTU Dresden, University Hospital Carl Gustav CarusDresdenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Urology, Klinikum GrosshadernLudwig-Maximilians-University MunichMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations