Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Direct comparison of logistic regression and recursive partitioning to predict chemotherapy response of breast cancer based on clinical pathological variables

  • Clinical Trial
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose was to compare logistic regression model (LRM) and recursive partitioning (RP) to predict pathologic complete response to preoperative chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. The two models were built in a same training set of 496 patients and validated in a same validation set of 337 patients. Model performance was quantified with respect to discrimination (evaluated by the areas under the receiver operating characteristics curves (AUC)) and calibration. In the training set, AUC were similar for LRM and RP models (0.77 (95% confidence interval, 0.74–0.80) and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.74–0.79), respectively) while LRM outperformed RP in the validation set (0.78 (95% CI, 0.74–0.82) versus 0.64 (95% CI, 0.60–0.67). LRM model also outperformed RP model in term of calibration. In these real datasets, LRM model outperformed RP model. It is therefore more suitable for clinical use.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chollet P, Amat S, Belembaogo E et al (2003) Is Nottingham prognostic index useful after induction chemotherapy in operable breast cancer? Br J Cancer 89:1185–1191. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6601258

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Diblasio CJ, Kattan MW (2003) Use of nomograms to predict the risk of disease recurrence after definitive local therapy for prostate cancer. Urology 62(suppl 1):9–18. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2003.09.029

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Eastham JA, Kattan MW, Scardino PT (2002) Nomograms as predictive models. Semin Urol Oncol 20:108–115. doi:10.1053/suro.2002.32936

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kattan MW (2003) Comparison of Cox regression with other methods for determining prediction models and nomograms. J Urol 170:S6–S9. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000094764.56269.2d (discussion S10)

    Article  PubMed  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. doi:10.1097/00042307-200303000-00005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kattan MW, Giri D, Panageas KS et al (2004) A tool for predicting breast carcinoma mortality in women who do not receive adjuvant therapy. Cancer 101:2509–2515. doi:10.1002/cncr.20635

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pusztai L, Gianni L (2004) Technology insight: Emerging techniques to predict response to preoperative chemotherapy in breast cancer. Nat Clin Pract Oncol 1:44–50. doi:10.1038/ncponc0025

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ravdin PM, Siminoff LA, Davis GJ et al (2001) Computer program to assist in making decisions about adjuvant therapy for women with early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 19:980–991

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Rouzier R, Pusztai L, Delaloge S et al (2005) Nomograms to predict pathologic complete response and metastasis-free survival after preoperative chemotherapy for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:8331–8339. doi:10.1200/JCO.2005.01.2898

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rouzier R, Pusztai L, Garbay JR et al (2006) Development and validation of nomograms for predicting residual tumor size and the probability of successful conservative surgery with neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Cancer 107:1459–1466. doi:10.1002/cncr.22177

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Shariat SF, Capitanio U, Jeldres C, Karakiewicz PI (2008) Can nomograms be superior to other prediction tools? BJU Int

  12. Shariat SF, Karakiewicz PI, Suardi N, Kattan MW (2008) Comparison of nomograms with other methods for predicting outcomes in prostate cancer: a critical analysis of the literature. Clin Cancer Res 14:4400–4407. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-4713

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Chun FK, Graefen M, Briganti A et al (2007) Initial biopsy outcome prediction–head-to-head comparison of a logistic regression-based nomogram versus artificial neural network. Eur Urol 51:1236–1240. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2006.07.021(discussion 1241–1233)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Contesso G, Mouriesse H, Friedman S, Genin J, Sarrazin D, Rouesse J (1987) The importance of histologic grade in long-term prognosis of breast cancer: a study of 1,010 patients, uniformly treated at the Institut Gustave-Roussy. J Clin Oncol 5:1378–1386

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ (1982) The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 143:29–36

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hôpital Tenon, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Pierre et Marie Curie University – Paris 6, 4 rue de la Chine, 75020, Paris Cedex, France

    Roman Rouzier, Charles Coutant & Bénédicte Lesieur

  2. Breast Cancer Unit, Institut Gustave Roussy, 39 rue Desmoulins, 94805, Villejuif Cedex, France

    Roman Rouzier & Chafika Mazouni

  3. Department of Breast Medical Oncology, Unit 1354, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, P.O. Box 301439, Houston, TX, USA

    Roman Rouzier, Charles Coutant, Chafika Mazouni & Lajos Pusztai

  4. Faculté de Médecine, Institut Mondor de Médecine Moléculaire (IFR10), University Paris 12, Créteil, 94000, France

    Roberto Incitti

  5. Computer Sciences Department, University of Paris – Est. ESIEE-Paris, Cité Descartes, BP.99, 93162, Noisy-le-Grand, France

    René Natowicz

Authors
  1. Roman Rouzier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Charles Coutant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bénédicte Lesieur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chafika Mazouni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Roberto Incitti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. René Natowicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Lajos Pusztai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roman Rouzier.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rouzier, R., Coutant, C., Lesieur, B. et al. Direct comparison of logistic regression and recursive partitioning to predict chemotherapy response of breast cancer based on clinical pathological variables. Breast Cancer Res Treat 117, 325–331 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-009-0308-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-009-0308-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation