Keeping data continuous when analyzing the prognostic impact of a tumor marker: an example with cathepsin D in breast cancer

被引:23
作者
Bossard, N
Descotes, F
Bremond, AG
Bobin, Y
De Saint Hilarie, P
Golfier, F
Awada, A
Mathevet, PM
Berrerd, L
Barbier, Y
Estève, J
机构
[1] Univ Lyon 1, Ctr Hosp Lyon Sud, Hospices Civils Lyon, Serv Biostat, F-69495 Pierre Benite, France
[2] Ctr Hosp Lyon Sud, Serv Tech Nucl & Biophys, Unite In Vitro, F-69310 Pierre Benite, France
[3] Ctr Leon Berard, Serv Chirurg, F-69373 Lyon, France
[4] Ctr Hosp Lyon Sud, Serv Chirurg Oncol, F-69310 Pierre Benite, France
[5] Hop Croix Rousse, Serv Gynecol Obstet, F-69317 Lyon, France
[6] Hop Hotel Dieu, Serv Gynecol Obstet, F-69288 Lyon, France
[7] Clin Jeanne Arc, Lyon, France
[8] Hop Edouard Herriot, Gynecol Serv, Lyon, France
关键词
breast neoplasms; cathepsin D; continuous variable; fractional polynomials; prognostic studies; smoothing splines; statistical models; threshold values; variable transformation;
D O I
10.1023/B:BREA.0000003919.75055.e8
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
The prognostic value of cathepsin D has been recently recognized, but as many quantitative tumor markers, its clinical use remains unclear partly because of methodological issues in defining cut-off values. Guidelines have been proposed for analyzing quantitative prognostic factors, underlining the need for keeping data continuous, instead of categorizing them. Flexible approaches, parametric and non-parametric, have been proposed in order to improve the knowledge of the functional form relating a continuous factor to the risk. We studied the prognostic value of cathepsin D in a retrospective hospital cohort of 771 patients with breast cancer, and focused our overall survival analysis, based on the Cox regression, on two flexible approaches: smoothing splines and fractional polynomials. We also determined a cut-off value from the maximum likelihood estimate of a threshold model. These different approaches complemented each other for (1) identifying the functional form relating cathepsin D to the risk, and obtaining a cut-off value and (2) optimizing the adjustment for complex covariate like age at diagnosis in the final multivariate Cox model. We found a significant increase in the death rate, reaching 70% with a doubling of the level of cathepsin D, after the threshold of 37.5 pmol mg(-1). The proper prognostic impact of this marker could be confirmed and a methodology providing appropriate ways to use markers in clinical practice was proposed.
引用
收藏
页码:47 / 59
页数:13
相关论文
共 39 条
[1]   DANGERS OF USING OPTIMAL CUTPOINTS IN THE EVALUATION OF PROGNOSTIC FACTORS [J].
ALTMAN, DG ;
LAUSEN, B ;
SAUERBREI, W ;
SCHUMACHER, M .
JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 1994, 86 (11) :829-835
[2]   Methodological challenges in the evaluation of prognostic factors in breast cancer [J].
Altman, DG ;
Lyman, GH .
BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 1998, 52 (1-3) :289-303
[3]  
Ardavanis A, 1998, ANTICANCER RES, V18, P2885
[4]   Immunohistochemical cathepsin-D expression in breast cancer: Correlation with established pathological parameters and survival [J].
Aziz, S ;
Pervez, S ;
Khan, S ;
Kayani, N ;
Rahbar, M .
PATHOLOGY RESEARCH AND PRACTICE, 2001, 197 (08) :551-557
[5]   2000 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast and colorectal cancer: Clinical practice guidelines of the American Society of Clinical Oncology [J].
Bast, RC ;
Ravdin, P ;
Hayes, DF ;
Bates, S ;
Fritsche, H ;
Jessup, JM ;
Kemeny, N ;
Locker, GY ;
Mennel, RG ;
Somerfield, MR .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2001, 19 (06) :1865-1878
[6]   The role of cathepsin D and PAI-1 in primary invasive breast cancer as prognosticators and predictors of treatment benefit with adjuvant tamoxifen [J].
Billgren, AM ;
Rutqvist, LE ;
Johansson, H ;
Hägerström, T ;
Skoog, L .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2000, 36 (11) :1374-1380
[7]   Predictors of distant metastasis at presentation in breast cancer: a study also evaluating associations among common biological indicators [J].
Bozcuk, H ;
Uslu, G ;
Pestereli, E ;
Samur, M ;
Ozdogan, M ;
Karaveli, S ;
Sargin, F ;
Savas, B .
BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 2001, 68 (03) :239-248
[8]  
Clark GM, 1996, DIS BREAST, P461
[9]  
Eifel P, 2001, JNCI-J NATL CANCER I, V93, P979
[10]  
*EORTC, 1980, 2 EORTC WORKSH 16 17, V16, P1513