Cargando…
Survival of patients with nonseminomatous germ cell cancer: a review of the IGCC classification by Cox regression and recursive partitioning
The International Germ Cell Consensus (IGCC) classification identifies good, intermediate and poor prognosis groups among patients with metastatic nonseminomatous germ cell tumours (NSGCT). It uses the risk factors primary site, presence of nonpulmonary visceral metastases and tumour markers alpha-f...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group
2004
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2409665/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15026798 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6601665 |
_version_ | 1782155827343261696 |
---|---|
author | van Dijk, M R Steyerberg, E W Stenning, S P Dusseldorp, E Habbema, J D F |
author_facet | van Dijk, M R Steyerberg, E W Stenning, S P Dusseldorp, E Habbema, J D F |
author_sort | van Dijk, M R |
collection | PubMed |
description | The International Germ Cell Consensus (IGCC) classification identifies good, intermediate and poor prognosis groups among patients with metastatic nonseminomatous germ cell tumours (NSGCT). It uses the risk factors primary site, presence of nonpulmonary visceral metastases and tumour markers alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) and lactic dehydrogenase (LDH). The IGCC classification is easy to use and remember, but lacks flexibility. We aimed to examine the extent of any loss in discrimination within the IGCC classification in comparison with alternative modelling by formal weighing of the risk factors. We analysed survival of 3048 NSGCT patients with Cox regression and recursive partitioning for alternative classifications. Good, intermediate and poor prognosis groups were based on predicted 5-year survival. Classifications were further refined by subgrouping within the poor prognosis group. Performance was measured primarily by a bootstrap corrected c-statistic to indicate discriminative ability for future patients. The weights of the risk factors in the alternative classifications differed slightly from the implicit weights in the IGCC classification. Discriminative ability, however, did not increase clearly (IGCC classification, c=0.732; Cox classification, c=0.730; Recursive partitioning classification, c=0.709). Three subgroups could be identified within the poor prognosis groups, resulting in classifications with five prognostic groups and slightly better discriminative ability (c=0.740). In conclusion, the IGCC classification in three prognostic groups is largely supported by Cox regression and recursive partitioning. Cox regression was the most promising tool to define a more refined classification. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-2409665 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2004 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-24096652009-09-10 Survival of patients with nonseminomatous germ cell cancer: a review of the IGCC classification by Cox regression and recursive partitioning van Dijk, M R Steyerberg, E W Stenning, S P Dusseldorp, E Habbema, J D F Br J Cancer Clinical The International Germ Cell Consensus (IGCC) classification identifies good, intermediate and poor prognosis groups among patients with metastatic nonseminomatous germ cell tumours (NSGCT). It uses the risk factors primary site, presence of nonpulmonary visceral metastases and tumour markers alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) and lactic dehydrogenase (LDH). The IGCC classification is easy to use and remember, but lacks flexibility. We aimed to examine the extent of any loss in discrimination within the IGCC classification in comparison with alternative modelling by formal weighing of the risk factors. We analysed survival of 3048 NSGCT patients with Cox regression and recursive partitioning for alternative classifications. Good, intermediate and poor prognosis groups were based on predicted 5-year survival. Classifications were further refined by subgrouping within the poor prognosis group. Performance was measured primarily by a bootstrap corrected c-statistic to indicate discriminative ability for future patients. The weights of the risk factors in the alternative classifications differed slightly from the implicit weights in the IGCC classification. Discriminative ability, however, did not increase clearly (IGCC classification, c=0.732; Cox classification, c=0.730; Recursive partitioning classification, c=0.709). Three subgroups could be identified within the poor prognosis groups, resulting in classifications with five prognostic groups and slightly better discriminative ability (c=0.740). In conclusion, the IGCC classification in three prognostic groups is largely supported by Cox regression and recursive partitioning. Cox regression was the most promising tool to define a more refined classification. Nature Publishing Group 2004-03-22 2004-02-24 /pmc/articles/PMC2409665/ /pubmed/15026798 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6601665 Text en Copyright © 2004 Cancer Research UK https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material.If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Clinical van Dijk, M R Steyerberg, E W Stenning, S P Dusseldorp, E Habbema, J D F Survival of patients with nonseminomatous germ cell cancer: a review of the IGCC classification by Cox regression and recursive partitioning |
title | Survival of patients with nonseminomatous germ cell cancer: a review of the IGCC classification by Cox regression and recursive partitioning |
title_full | Survival of patients with nonseminomatous germ cell cancer: a review of the IGCC classification by Cox regression and recursive partitioning |
title_fullStr | Survival of patients with nonseminomatous germ cell cancer: a review of the IGCC classification by Cox regression and recursive partitioning |
title_full_unstemmed | Survival of patients with nonseminomatous germ cell cancer: a review of the IGCC classification by Cox regression and recursive partitioning |
title_short | Survival of patients with nonseminomatous germ cell cancer: a review of the IGCC classification by Cox regression and recursive partitioning |
title_sort | survival of patients with nonseminomatous germ cell cancer: a review of the igcc classification by cox regression and recursive partitioning |
topic | Clinical |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2409665/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15026798 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6601665 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT vandijkmr survivalofpatientswithnonseminomatousgermcellcancerareviewoftheigccclassificationbycoxregressionandrecursivepartitioning AT steyerbergew survivalofpatientswithnonseminomatousgermcellcancerareviewoftheigccclassificationbycoxregressionandrecursivepartitioning AT stenningsp survivalofpatientswithnonseminomatousgermcellcancerareviewoftheigccclassificationbycoxregressionandrecursivepartitioning AT dusseldorpe survivalofpatientswithnonseminomatousgermcellcancerareviewoftheigccclassificationbycoxregressionandrecursivepartitioning AT habbemajdf survivalofpatientswithnonseminomatousgermcellcancerareviewoftheigccclassificationbycoxregressionandrecursivepartitioning |