Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

When and how to use informatics tools in caring for urologic patients

Nature Clinical Practice Urology volume 2, pages 183–190 (2005)Cite this article

Abstract

Making predictions is an essential part of any medical decision. It is particularly crucial when considering treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. Nomograms and prediction model software typically provide the most accurate predictions. Many nomograms have been developed, for all prostate cancer clinical states. Some of these are discussed in this review, as is their utility in facilitating decision making and informed consent.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Preoperative nomogram based on 983 patients treated at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, for predicting freedom from recurrence after radical prostatectomy.
Figure 2: Prostate cancer clinical states.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Miles BJ et al. (1999) Recall and attitudes in patients with prostate cancer. Urology 53: 169–174

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Clark JA et al. (2001) Living with treatment decisions: regrets and quality of life among men treated for metastatic prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 19: 72–80

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kattan MW and Scardino PT (2002) Prediction of progression: nomograms of clinical utility. Clin Prostate Cancer 1: 90–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Fowler FJ Jr et al. (2000) Comparison of recommendations by urologists and radiation oncologists for treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 283: 3217–3222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kattan MW (2003) Nomograms are superior to staging and risk grouping systems for identifying high-risk patients: preoperative application in prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol 13: 111–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Yanke BW et al. (2005) Validation of a nomogram for predicting positive repeat biopsy for prostate cancer. J Urol 173: 421–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ohori M et al. (2004) Predicting the presence and side of extracapsular extension: a nomogram for staging prostate cancer. J Urol 171: 1844–1849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Partin AW et al. (2001) Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium. Urology 58: 843–848

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Koh H et al. (2003) A nomogram to predict seminal vesicle invasion by the extent and location of cancer in systematic biopsy results. J Urol 170: 1203–1208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cagiannos I et al. (2003) A preoperative nomogram identifying decreased risk of positive pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer. J Urol 170: 1798–1803

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kattan MW et al. (2003) Counseling men with prostate cancer: a nomogram for predicting the presence of small, moderately differentiated, confined tumors. J Urol 170: 1792–1797

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kattan MW et al. (1998) A preoperative nomogram for disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 90: 766–771

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Graefen M et al. (2002) International validation of a preoperative nomogram for prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 20: 3206–3212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bianco FJ Jr et al. (2003) Radical prostatectomy nomograms in black American men: accuracy and applicability. J Urol 170: 73–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Greene KL et al. (2004) Validation of the Kattan preoperative nomogram for prostate cancer recurrence using a community based cohort: results from cancer of the prostate strategic urological research endeavor (CAPSURE). J Urol 171: 2255–2259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Graefen M et al. (2002) A validation of two preoperative nomograms predicting recurrence following radical prostatectomy in a cohort of European men. Urol Oncol 7: 141–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ross PL et al. (2002) Comparisons of nomograms and urologists' predictions in prostate cancer. Semin Urol Oncol 20: 82–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Eastham JA et al. (2003) Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) 90203: A randomized phase III study of radical prostatectomy alone versus estramustine and docetaxel prior to radical prostatectomy for patients with high-risk localized disease. Urology 62 (Suppl 1): S55–S62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kattan MW et al. (2000) Pretreatment nomogram for predicting the outcome of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy in prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 18: 3352–3359

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Kattan MW et al. (2003) Pretreatment nomogram that predicts 5-year probability of metastasis following three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 21: 4568–4571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kattan MW et al. (2001) Pretreatment nomogram for predicting freedom from recurrence after permanent prostate brachytherapy in prostate cancer. Urology 58: 393–399

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Kattan MW et al. (1999) Postoperative nomogram for disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 17: 1499–1507

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Graefen M et al. (2002) A validation study of the accuracy of a postoperative nomogram for recurrence after radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 20: 951–956

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Dotan Z et al.: The pattern of PSA failure dictates the probability of a positive bone scan in patients PSA after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol, in press

  25. Smaletz O et al. (2002) A nomogram for overall survival of patients with progressive metastatic prostate cancer after castration. J Clin Oncol 20: 3972–3982

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Halabi S et al. (2003) Prognostic model for predicting survival in men with hormone-refractory metastatic prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 21: 1232–1237

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Chairman of the Department of Quantitative Health Sciences at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, OH, USA

    Michael W Kattan

Authors
  1. Michael W Kattan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael W Kattan.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

Dr Kattan is a founder and Scientific Advisory Board Chairman for Oncovance Technologies, Inc (Houston, TX).

Glossary

CONFIDENCE INTERVAL

An estimated range of values (based on a given set of sample data) that has a specified probability of containing the value being estimated

CONCORDANCE INDEX

An index used to measure the accuracy of a predictive model, ranging from 0.5 (no discriminating ability) to 1.0 (perfect discrimination)

GLEASON GRADE

The grade assigned to each of the two largest cancerous areas of tissue samples; grades range from 1 (least aggressive) to 5 (most aggressive)

PARTIN TABLES

Tables that predict the pathologic stage of prostate cancer using Gleason sum, PSA, and clinical stage

GLEASON SUM

Sum of grades assigned to the two largest cancerous areas of tissue samples; grades range from 1 (least aggressive) to 5 (most aggressive)

CONFORMAL RADIOTHERAPY

Computers create a three-dimensional image of the tumor so that multiple radiation beams can be shaped exactly to contours of treatment area

KARNOFSKY PERFORMANCE STATUS

A 0 (dead) to 100 (fully active) scoring system to assess the wellbeing of cancer patients and their ability to perform ordinary tasks

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kattan, M. When and how to use informatics tools in caring for urologic patients. Nat Rev Urol 2, 183–190 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpuro0144

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpuro0144

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing