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
  • Published:

Tools for predicting patient-reported outcomes in prostate cancer patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: a systematic review of prognostic accuracy and validity

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases volume 20, pages 378–388 (2017)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Background:

Radical prostatectomy is a common surgical procedure performed to treat prostate cancer. Patient-reported outcomes after surgery include urinary incontinence, erectile dysfunction, decreased quality of life and psychological effects. Predictive tools to assess the likelihood of an individual experiencing various patient-reported outcomes have been developed to aid decision-making when selecting treatment.

Methods:

A systematic review was undertaken to identify all papers describing tools for the prediction of patient-reported outcome measures in men with prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy. To be eligible for inclusion, papers had to provide a summary measure of accuracy. PubMed and EMBASE were searched from July 2007. Title/abstract screening, and full-text review were undertaken by two reviewers, while data extraction and critical appraisal was performed by a single reviewer.

Results:

The search strategy identified 3217 potential studies, of which 191 progressed to full-text review and 14 were included. From these studies, 27 tools in total were identified, of which 18 predicted urinary symptoms, six predicted erectile function and one predicted freedom from a group of three outcomes (‘trifecta’) (biochemical recurrence, incontinence and erectile dysfunction). On the basis of tool accuracy (>70%) and external validation, two tools predicting incontinence and two tools predicting erectile dysfunction are ready for implementation.

Conclusions:

A small number of tools for the prediction of patient-reported outcomes following radical prostatectomy have been developed. Four tools were found to have adequate accuracy and validation and are ready for implementation for the prediction of urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Global Burden of Disease Cancer C, Fitzmaurice C, Dicker D, Pain A, Hamavid H, Moradi-Lakeh M et al. The Global Burden of Cancer 2013. JAMA Oncol 2015; 1: 505–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer 2015; 136: E359–E386.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) Australian Cancer Incidence and Mortality (ACIM) books: Prostate cancer. AIHW AIHW: Canberra, Australia, 2016.

  4. Abdollah F, Sun M, Thuret R, Jeldres C, Tian Z, Briganti A et al. A competing-risks analysis of survival after alternative treatment modalities for prostate cancer patients: 1988-2006. Eur Urol 2011; 59: 88–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Birkmeyer NJ, Dimick JB, Share D, Hawasli A, English WJ, Genaw J et al. Hospital complication rates with bariatric surgery in Michigan. JAMA 2010; 304: 435–442.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Schultz D, Blank K, Broderick GA et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998; 280: 969–974.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Stanford JL, Feng Z, Hamilton AS, Gilliland FD, Stephenson RA, Eley JW et al. Urinary and sexual function after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. JAMA 2000; 283: 354–360.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Rabbani F, Stapleton AM, Kattan MW, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT . Factors predicting recovery of erections after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2000; 164: 1929–1934.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Ayyathurai R, Manoharan M, Nieder AM, Kava B, Soloway MS . Factors affecting erectile function after radical retropubic prostatectomy: results from 1620 consecutive patients. BJU Int 2008; 101: 833–836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kundu SD, Roehl KA, Eggener SE, Antenor JA, Han M, Catalona WJ . Potency, continence and complications in 3,477 consecutive radical retropubic prostatectomies. J Urol 2004; 172 (6 Pt 1): 2227–2231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Eastham JA, Scardino PT, Kattan MW . Predicting an optimal outcome after radical prostatectomy: the trifecta nomogram. J Urol 2008; 179: 2207–2210; discussion2210-2201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Descazeaud A, Debre B, Flam TA . Age difference between patient and partner is a predictive factor of potency rate following radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2006; 176 (6 Pt 1): 2594–2598; discussion 2598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Michl UH, Friedrich MG, Graefen M, Haese A, Heinzer H, Huland H . Prediction of postoperative sexual function after nerve sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 2006; 176: 227–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Tal R, Alphs HH, Krebs P, Nelson CJ, Mulhall JP . Erectile function recovery rate after radical prostatectomy: a meta-analysis. J Sex Med 2009; 6: 2538–2546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kattan MW, Yu C, Stephenson AJ, Sartor O, Tombal B . Clinicians versus nomogram: predicting future technetium-99m bone scan positivity in patients with rising prostate-specific antigen after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Urology 2013; 81: 956–961.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Walz J, Gallina A, Perrotte P, Jeldres C, Trinh QD, Hutterer GC et al. Clinicians are poor raters of life-expectancy before radical prostatectomy or definitive radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 2007; 100: 1254–1258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Altman DG, Royston P . What do we mean by validating a prognostic model? Stat Med 2000; 19: 453–473.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Royston P, Altman DG . External validation of a Cox prognostic model: principles and methods. BMC Med Res Methodol 2013; 13: 33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Shariat SF, Karakiewicz PI, Roehrborn CG, Kattan MW . An updated catalog of prostate cancer predictive tools. Cancer 2008; 113: 3075–3099.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Evans SM, Nag N, Roder D, Brooks A, Millar JL, Moretti KL et al. Development of an International Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry. BJU Int 2016; 117 (Suppl 4): 60–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Centre for Evidence Based Medicine Critical Appraisal of Prognostic Studies. : University of Oxford: Oxford, UK, 2016.

  22. Barnoiu OS, Garcia Galisteo E, Baron Lopez F, Vozmediano Chicharro R, Soler Martinez J, Del Rosal Samaniego JM et al. Prospective urodynamic model for prediction of urinary incontinence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Urol Int 2014; 92: 306–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Abdollah F, Sun M, Suardi N, Gallina A, Bianchi M, Tutolo M et al. Prediction of functional outcomes after nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: results of conditional survival analyses. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 42–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Haskins AE, Han PK, Lucas FL, Bristol I, Hansen M . Development of clinical models for predicting erectile function after localized prostate cancer treatment. Int J Urol 2014; 21: 1227–1233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Abdollah F, Sun M, Suardi N, Gallina A, Tutolo M, Passoni N et al. A novel tool to assess the risk of urinary incontinence after nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2013; 111: 905–913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Briganti A, Gallina A, Suardi N, Capitanio U, Tutolo M, Bianchi M et al. Predicting erectile function recovery after bilateral nerve sparing radical prostatectomy: a proposal of a novel preoperative risk stratification. J Sex Med 2010; 7: 2521–2531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Novara G, Ficarra V, D'Elia C, Secco S, De Gobbi A, Cavalleri S et al. Preoperative criteria to select patients for bilateral nerve-sparing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Sex Med 2010; 7 (2 Pt 1): 839–845.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Skeldon SC, Gani J, Evans A, Van Der Kwast T, Radomski SB . Striated muscle in the prostatic apex: does the amount in radical prostatectomy specimens predict postprostatectomy urinary incontinence? Urology 2014; 83: 888–892.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Alemozaffar M, Regan MM, Cooperberg MR, Wei JT, Michalski JM, Sandler HM et al. Prediction of erectile function following treatment for prostate cancer. JAMA 2011; 306: 1205–1214.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Matsushita K, Kent MT, Vickers AJ, von Bodman C, Bernstein M, Touijer KA et al. Preoperative predictive model of recovery of urinary continence after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2015; 116: 577–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Von Bodman C, Matsushita K, Savage C, Matikainen M, Eastham J, Scardino P et al. Recovery of urinary function after radical prostatectomy; Predictors of urinary function on preoperative prostate magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol 2011; 185: e195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Barnoiu OS, Baron Lopez F, Garcia Galisteo E, Soler Martinez J, Vozmediano Chicharro R, Del Rosal Samaniego JM et al. Comprehensive prediction model of urinary incontinence one year following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Urol Int 2013; 90: 31–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Tienza A, Hevia M, Benito A, Pascual JI, Zudaire JJ, Robles JE . MRI factors to predict urinary incontinence after retropubic/laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Int Urol Nephrol 2015; 47: 1343–1349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Jeong SJ, Yeon JS, Lee JK, Cha WH, Jeong JW, Lee BK et al. Development and validation of nomograms to predict the recovery of urinary continence after radical prostatectomy: comparisons between immediate, early, and late continence. World J Urol 2014; 32: 437–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, Moons KG . Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. Ann Intern Med 2015; 162: 55–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Moons KG, Altman DG, Reitsma JB, Ioannidis JP, Macaskill P, Steyerberg EW et al. Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2015; 162: W1–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, Moons KG . Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. Br J Cancer 2015; 112: 251–259.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, Moons KG . Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement. BMC Med 2015; 13: 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, Moons KG . Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. BMJ 2015; 350: g7594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, Moons KG . members of Tg. Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement. Eur Urol 2015; 67: 1142–1151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, Moons KG . Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement. Br J Surg 2015; 102: 148–158.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, Moons KG . Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD). Ann Intern Med 2015; 162: 735–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Moons KG, Altman DG, Reitsma JB, Collins GS . New Guideline for the reporting of studies developing, validating, or updating a multivariable clinical prediction model: the TRIPOD Statement. Adv Anat Pathol 2015; 22: 303–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This project was funded by the Movember Foundation as part of the Prostate Cancer Health Outcomes Research Unit.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Urology Unit, SA Health, Repatriation General Hospital, Adelaide, SA, Australia,

    M E O'Callaghan & E Raymond

  2. South Australian Prostate Cancer Clinical Outcomes Collaborative (SA-PCCOC), Adelaide, SA, Australia,

    M E O'Callaghan, E Raymond, K Beckmann, M Borg & K Moretti

  3. Flinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, Adelaide, SA, Australia,

    M E O'Callaghan & K Moretti

  4. Freemasons Foundation Centre for Men’s Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia

    M E O'Callaghan, A D Vincent & K Moretti

  5. Joanna Briggs Institute, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia

    J Campbell

  6. Centre for Population Health Research, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia

    K Beckmann, D Roder & K Moretti

  7. Department of Epidemiology & Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    S Evans, J McNeil & J Zalcberg

  8. Department of Radiation Oncology, Alfred Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia,

    J Millar

  9. Adelaide Radiotherapy Centre, Adelaide, SA, Australia,

    M Borg

  10. Discipline of Surgery, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia

    K Moretti

Authors
  1. M E O'Callaghan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. E Raymond
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J Campbell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A D Vincent
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. K Beckmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. D Roder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. S Evans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. J McNeil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. J Millar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. J Zalcberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. M Borg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. K Moretti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M E O'Callaghan.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Supplementary Information accompanies the paper on the Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases website

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

O'Callaghan, M., Raymond, E., Campbell, J. et al. Tools for predicting patient-reported outcomes in prostate cancer patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: a systematic review of prognostic accuracy and validity. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 20, 378–388 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2017.28

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2017.28

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links