Population-Based Comparison of Different Risk Stratification Systems Among Prostate Cancer Patients

• DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.646073
• Publication Date: 2021-04-13T04:56:20Z
• Authors: Mu Xie; Xian-Shu Gao; Ming-Wei Ma; Xiao-Bin Gu; Hong-Zhen Li; Feng Lyu; Yun Bai; Jia-Yan Chen; Xue-Ying Ren; Ming-Zhu Liu
• Keywords: Guideline; Nomogram; Risk Stratification

Background It is not known which risk stratification system has the best discrimination ability for predicting prostate cancer death. Methods We identified patients with non-metastatic primary adenocarcinoma diagnosis between 2004 and 2015 using Surveillance, Epidemiology, End Results database. Patients were categorized in different groups three frequently used systems of National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline (NCCN-g), American Urological Association (AUA-g), European Urology (EAU-g), respectively. Associations classification cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) determined Kaplan–Meier analyses multivariable regression Cox proportional hazards model. Area under receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) to test grouping systems. analyzed 310,062 a median follow-up 61 months. A total 36,368 deaths occurred, including 6,033 deaths. For all systems, significantly associated PCSM. The AUC model relying on NCCN-g, AUA-g, EAU-g PCSM at specifically 8 years 0.818, 0.793, 0.689 entire population; 0.819, 0.795, 0.691 Whites; 0.802, 0.777, 0.681 Blacks; 0.862, 0.714 Asians; 0.845, 0.806, 0.728 Chinese patients. Regardless age, marital status, socioeconomic treatment modality, NCCN-g AUA-g was greater than that EAU-g; system. Conclusions perform better discriminating compared recommended use evaluate then provide more appropriate corresponding recommendations.