Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42211501›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026

Update of the MSKCC nomogram for metastatic progression and its role in active surveillance: the Italian TPCP cohort.

Nicolas Destefanis, Daniela Zugna, Valentina Fiano, Renata Zelic, Michelangelo Fiorentino, Francesca Giunchi, Piero Fariselli, Mauro Giulio Papotti, Paola Cassoni, Marco Oderda and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

Nicolas DestefanisCancer Epidemiology Unit, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Daniela ZugnaCancer Epidemiology Unit, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Valentina FianoCancer Epidemiology Unit, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Renata ZelicDepartment of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Michelangelo FiorentinoDIMEC Department of Medicine and Surgery, Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Francesca GiunchiDepartment of Pathology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Piero FariselliComputational Biomedicine Unit, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Mauro Giulio PapottiDivision of Pathology, University Hospital "Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino" and University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Paola CassoniDivision of Pathology, University Hospital "Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino" and University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Marco OderdaDepartment of Surgical Sciences, Urology Unit, Molinette Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Paolo GonteroDepartment of Surgical Sciences, Urology Unit, Molinette Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Luca LianasVisual and Data-intensive Computing, CRS4 (Center for Advanced Studies, Research and Development in Sardinia), Pula, Italy.
Mauro Del RioVisual and Data-intensive Computing, CRS4 (Center for Advanced Studies, Research and Development in Sardinia), Pula, Italy.
Giuseppe Carlo IorioDepartment of Oncology, Radiation Oncology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Umberto RicardiDepartment of Oncology, Radiation Oncology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Olof AkreDepartment of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Andreas PetterssonDepartment of Pelvic Cancer, Cancer Theme, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Lorenzo RichiardiCancer Epidemiology Unit, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Prognostic models are crucial for prostate cancer (PCa) treatment decision making at the time of diagnosis, particularly for distinguishing active surveillance (AS) candidates from those requiring curative treatment. While several models exist, their ability to predict metastatic disease-the primary driver of PCa mortality-remains underexplored. Methods: We analysed the Turin Prostate Cancer Prognostication cohort, which includes 891 unselected PCa patients diagnosed between 2008 and 2013 in Turin, Italy. Three widely used prognostic models-D'Amico, CAPRA, and MSKCC-were updated and compared based on optimism-corrected discrimination and overall prediction error for metastatic PCa (mPCa) within five years of diagnosis, accounting for competing risks. Overall survival was also assessed. Additionally, we investigated whether replacing standard AS eligibility criteria with nomogram-based risk thresholds could better identify patients at low risk of metastasis, maximizing AS uptake while minimising metastatic risk. Results: The MSKCC nomogram (optimism-corrected AUC Conclusions: The MSKCC nomogram outperformed other models in predicting mPCa and overall mortality. Implementing risk-based AS eligibility thresholds derived from MSKCC could enhance patient selection while facilitating shared decision-making between patients and clinicians.

Indexed as

active surveillancemetastatic prostate cancerprognosisprognostic modellingprostate cancer

Identifiers

PMID42211501
PMCPMC13212092

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.