1
|
Pallauf M, König F, D’Andrea D, Laukhtina E, Mostafaei H, Motlagh RS, Quhal F, Aydh A, Yanagisawa T, Kawada T, Rajwa P, Lusuardi L, Soria F, Karakiewicz PI, Rouprêt M, Rink M, Lotan Y, Margulis V, Singla N, Xylinas E, Shariat SF, Pradere B. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prognostic Nomograms After UTUC Surgery. Front Oncol 2022; 12:907975. [PMID: 35847838 PMCID: PMC9283688 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.907975] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/30/2022] [Accepted: 05/02/2022] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Current guidelines recommend assessing the prognosis in high-risk upper tract urothelial carcinoma patients (UTUC) after surgery. However, no specific method is endorsed. Among the various prognostic models, nomograms represent an easy and accurate tool to predict the individual probability for a specific event. Therefore, identifying the best-suited nomogram for each setting seems of great interest to the patient and provider. Objectives To identify, summarize and compare postoperative UTUC nomograms predicting oncologic outcomes. To estimate the overall performance of the nomograms and identify the most reliable predictors. To create a reference tool for postoperative UTUC nomograms, physicians can use in clinical practice. Design A systematic review was conducted following the recommendations of Cochrane’s Prognosis Methods Group. Medline and EMBASE databases were searched for studies published before December 2021. Nomograms were grouped according to outcome measurements, the purpose of use, and inclusion and exclusion criteria. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to estimate nomogram group performance and predictor reliability. Reference tables summarizing the nomograms’ important characteristics were created. Results The systematic review identified 26 nomograms. Only four were externally validated. Study heterogeneity was significant, and the overall Risk of Bias (RoB) was high. Nomogram groups predicting overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and intravesical recurrence (IVR) had moderate discrimination accuracy (c-Index summary estimate with 95% confidence interval [95% CI] and prediction interval [PI] > 0.6). Nomogram groups predicting cancer-specific survival (CSS) had good discrimination accuracy (c-Index summary estimate with 95% CI and PI > 0.7). Advanced pathological tumor stage (≥ pT3) was the most reliable predictor of OS. Pathological tumor stage (≥ pT2), age, and lymphovascular invasion (LVI) were the most reliable predictors of CSS. LVI was the most reliable predictor of RFS. Conclusions Despite a moderate to good discrimination accuracy, severe heterogeneity discourages the uninformed use of postoperative prognostic UTUC nomograms. For nomograms to become of value in a generalizable population, future research must invest in external validation and assessment of clinical utility. Meanwhile, this systematic review serves as a reference tool for physicians choosing nomograms based on individual needs. Systematic Review Registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=282596, identifier PROSPERO [CRD42021282596].
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maximilian Pallauf
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Salzburg, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria
| | - Frederik König
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Urology, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - David D’Andrea
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Ekaterina Laukhtina
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia
| | - Hadi Mostafaei
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Research Center for Evidence Based Medicine, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
| | - Reza Sari Motlagh
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Men’s Health and Reproductive Health Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | - Fahad Quhal
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Urology, King Fahad Specialist Hospital, Dammam, Saudi Arabia
| | - Abdulmajeed Aydh
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Urology, King Faisal Medical City, Abha, Saudi Arabia
| | - Takafumi Yanagisawa
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Tatsushi Kawada
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Urology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama, Japan
| | - Pawel Rajwa
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Silesia, Zabrze, Poland
| | - Lukas Lusuardi
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Salzburg, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria
| | - Francesco Soria
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Sciences, San Giovanni Battista Hospital, University of Studies of Torino, Turin, Italy
| | - Pierre I. Karakiewicz
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada
| | - Morgan Rouprêt
- Department of Urology, Pitié Salpétrière Hospital, Oncotype-Uro, Sorbonne University, Paris, France
| | - Michael Rink
- Department of Urology, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Yair Lotan
- Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, United States
| | - Vitaly Margulis
- Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, United States
| | - Nirmish Singla
- Departments of Urology and Oncology, The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States
| | | | - Shahrokh F. Shariat
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia
- Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, United States
- Hourani Center for Applied Scientific Research, Al-Ahliyya Amman University, Amman, Jordan
- Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czechia
- Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, United States
- Karl Landsteiner Insitute of Urology and Andrology, Karl Landsteiner Society, Vienna, Austria
| | - Benjamin Pradere
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Urology, La Croix du Sud Hôpital, Quint Fonsegrives, France
- *Correspondence: Benjamin Pradere,
| |
Collapse
|