Nomograms and the Elderly: Applications in Genitourinary Oncology

Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Management of Cancer in Older People book series (volume 1)

Abstract

Of all available clinical prediction tools, nomograms have been shown to provide the most accurate and practical individualized risk estimations, and for this reason, they have greatly grown in popularity in the modern era of medicine. These models function to replicate the clinical predictions of physicians in a reliable, unbiased, and evidence-based format that can provide patients with the necessary information to make a fully informed decision regarding treatment. The relevant clinical considerations – and, thus, the corresponding outcome predictions – may differ between populations of varying age, and nomograms predicting disease risk, quality of life, and mortality will likely be most relevant to an elderly population. The future of outcomes research should focus on the combination of multiple prediction models into comparative effectiveness tables which will serve as high-quality informed consent for the older patient contemplating therapy. While nomograms can help us to move beyond an era of age cutoff points, these and other prediction models will never be able to substitute for the clinical acumen and watchful eye of a thoughtful physician.

Keywords

Elderly Comparative effectiveness Nomograms Prediction tools 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Shariat SF, Capitanio U, Jeldres C, et al. Can nomograms be superior to other prediction tools? BJU Int. 2009;103(4):492–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ross PL, Gerigk C, Gonen M, et al. Comparisons of nomograms and urologists’ predictions in prostate cancer. Semin Urol Oncol. 2002;20(2):82–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Specht MC, Kattan MW, Gonen M, et al. Predicting nonsentinel node status after positive sentinel lymph biopsy for breast cancer: clinicians versus nomogram. Ann Surg Oncol. 2005;12(8):654–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cassileth BR, Zupkis RV, Sutton-Smith K, et al. Information and participation preferences among cancer patients. Ann Intern Med. 1980;92(6):832–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jenkins V, Fallowfield L, Saul J. Information needs of patients with cancer: results from a large study in UK cancer centres. Br J Cancer. 2001;84(1):48–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rees CE, Bath PA. The information needs and source preferences of women with breast cancer and their family members: a review of the literature published between 1988 and 1998. J Adv Nurs. 2000;31(4):833–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Smyth MM, McCaughan E, Harrisson S. Women’s perceptions of their experiences with breast cancer: are their needs being addressed? Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 1995;4(2):86–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Butow PN, Dunn SM, Tattersall MH, et al. Computer-based interaction analysis of the cancer consultation. Br J Cancer. 1995;71(5):1115–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rainey LC. Effects of preparatory patient education for radiation oncology patients. Cancer. 1985;56(5):1056–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chawla SN, Crispen PL, Hanlon AL, et al. The natural history of observed enhancing renal masses: meta-analysis and review of the world literature. J Urol. 2006;175(2):425–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lu-Yao GL, Albertsen PC, Moore DF, et al. Outcomes of localized prostate cancer following conservative management. JAMA. 2009;302(11):1202–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Isariyawongse BK, Sun L, Bañez LL, et al. Significant discrepancies between diagnostic and pathologic Gleason sums in prostate cancer: the predictive role of age and prostate-specific antigen. Urology. 2008;72(4):882–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moussa AS, Kattan MW, Berglund R, et al. A nomogram for predicting upgrading in patients with low- and intermediate-grade prostate cancer in the era of extended prostate sampling. BJU Int. 2010;105(3):352–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pahernik S, Ziegler S, Roos F, et al. Small renal tumors: correlation of clinical and pathological features with tumor size. J Urol. 2007;178(2):414–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Remzi M, Ozsoy M, Klingler HC, et al. Are small renal tumors harmless? Analysis of histopathological features according to tumors 4 cm or less in diameter. J Urol. 2006;176(3):896–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kutikov A, Smaldone MC, Egleston BL, et al. Anatomic features of enhancing renal masses predict malignant and high-grade pathology: a preoperative nomogram using the RENAL Nephrometry score. Eur Urol. 2011;60(2):241–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Valdagni R, Kattan MW, Rancati T, et al. Is it time to tailor the prediction of radio-induced toxicity in prostate cancer patients? Building the first set of nomograms for late rectal syndrome. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;82:1957–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pound CR, Partin AW, Eisenberger MA, et al. Natural history of progression after PSA elevation following radical prostatectomy. JAMA. 1999;281(17):1591–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Abdollah F, Sun M, Schmitges J, et al. Cancer-specific and other-cause mortality after radical prostatectomy versus observation in patients with prostate cancer: competing-risks analysis of a large North American population-based cohort. Eur Urol. 2011;60(5):920–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(18):1708–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update. 2007. http://www.auanet.org/content/clinical-practice-guidelines/clinical-guidelines/main-reports/proscan07/content.pdf. Accessed 20 Dec 2011.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of UrologyGlickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic FoundationClevelandUSA
  2. 2.Department of Quantitative Health SciencesGlickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic FoundationClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations