External validation of 87 clinical prediction models supporting clinical decisions for breast cancer patients

被引:4
作者
Hueting, Tom A. [1 ,2 ]
van Maaren, Marissa C. [1 ,3 ]
Hendriks, Mathijs P. [1 ,3 ,4 ]
Koffijberg, Hendrik [1 ]
Siesling, Sabine [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Twente, Tech Med Ctr, Dept Hlth Technol & Serv Res, POB 217, NL-7500 AE Enschede, Netherlands
[2] Evidencio, Med Decis Support, Haaksbergen, Netherlands
[3] Netherlands Comprehens Canc Org IKNL, Dept Res & Dev, Utrecht, Netherlands
[4] Northwest Clin, Dept Med Oncol, Alkmaar, Netherlands
关键词
Breast cancer; Prediction models; External validation; Prognostic model; Nomogram; HIGH-RISK; PERFORMANCE; PROBAST; BIAS; TOOL;
D O I
10.1016/j.breast.2023.04.003
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Introduction: Numerous prediction models have been developed to support treatment-related decisions for breast cancer patients. External validation, a prerequisite for implementation in clinical practice, has been performed for only a few models. This study aims to externally validate published clinical prediction models using population-based Dutch data.Methods: Patient-, tumor-and treatment-related data were derived from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR). Model performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), scaled Brier score, and model calibration. Net benefit across applicable risk thresholds was evaluated with decision curve analysis.Results: After assessing 922 models, 87 (9%) were included for validation. Models were excluded due to an incomplete model description (n = 262 (28%)), lack of required data (n = 521 (57%)), previously validated or developed with NCR data (n = 45 (5%)), or the associated NCR sample size was insufficient (n = 7 (1%)). The included models predicted survival (33 (38%) overall, 27 (31%) breast cancer-specific, and 3 (3%) other cause-specific), locoregional recurrence (n = 7 (8%)), disease free survival (n = 7 (8%)), metastases (n = 5 (6%)), lymph node involvement (n = 3 (3%)), pathologic complete response (n = 1 (1%)), and surgical margins (n = 1 (1%)). Seven models (8%) showed poor (AUC<0.6), 39 (45%) moderate (AUC:0.6-0.7), 38 (46%) good (AUC:0.7-0.9), and 3 (3%) excellent (AUC >= 0.9) discrimination. Using the scaled Brier score, worse performance than an uninformative model was found in 34 (39%) models.Conclusion: Comprehensive registry data supports broad validation of published prediction models. Model per-formance varies considerably in new patient populations, affirming the importance of external validation studies before applying models in clinical practice. Well performing models could be clinically useful in a Dutch setting after careful impact evaluation.
引用
收藏
页码:382 / 391
页数:10
相关论文
共 25 条
  • [1] An updated PREDICT breast cancer prognostication and treatment benefit prediction model with independent validation
    Candido dos Reis, Francisco J.
    Wishart, Gordon C.
    Dicks, Ed M.
    Greenberg, David
    Rashbass, Jem
    Schmidt, Marjanka K.
    van den Broek, Alexandra J.
    Ellis, Ian O.
    Green, Andrew
    Rakha, Emad
    Maishman, Tom
    Eccles, Diana M.
    Pharoah, Paul D. P.
    [J]. BREAST CANCER RESEARCH, 2017, 19
  • [2] Assessment of Ki67 in Breast Cancer: Recommendations from the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group
    Dowsett, Mitch
    Nielsen, Torsten O.
    A'Hern, Roger
    Bartlett, John
    Coombes, R. Charles
    Cuzick, Jack
    Ellis, Matthew
    Henry, N. Lynn
    Hugh, Judith C.
    Lively, Tracy
    McShane, Lisa
    Paik, Soon
    Penault-Llorca, Frederique
    Prudkin, Ljudmila
    Regan, Meredith
    Salter, Janine
    Sotiriou, Christos
    Smith, Ian E.
    Viale, Giuseppe
    Zujewski, Jo Anne
    Hayes, Daniel F.
    [J]. JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2011, 103 (22): : 1656 - 1664
  • [3] eur-lex, 2017, MED DEVICES REGULATI
  • [4] A nomogram for determining the disease-specific survival in invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast A population study
    Fu, Rong
    Yang, Jin
    Wang, Hui
    Li, Lin
    Kang, Yuzhi
    Kaaya, Rahel Elishilia
    Wang, ShengPeng
    Lyu, Jun
    [J]. MEDICINE, 2020, 99 (43) : E22807
  • [5] Handling missing predictor values when validating and applying a prediction model to new patients
    Hoogland, Jeroen
    van Barreveld, Marit
    Debray, Thomas P. A.
    Reitsma, Johannes B.
    Verstraelen, Tom E.
    Dijkgraaf, Marcel G. W.
    Zwinderman, Aeilko H.
    [J]. STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2020, 39 (25) : 3591 - 3607
  • [6] Differences in Breast Cancer Survival by Molecular Subtypes in the United States
    Howlader, Nadia
    Cronin, Kathleen A.
    Kurian, Allison W.
    Andridge, Rebecca
    [J]. CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION, 2018, 27 (06) : 619 - 626
  • [7] The majority of 922 prediction models supporting breast cancer decision- making are at high risk of bias
    Hueting, Tom A.
    van Maaren, Marissa C.
    Hendriks, Mathijs P.
    Koffijberg, Hendrik
    Siesling, Sabine
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2022, 152 : 238 - 247
  • [8] iarc, CANC TODAY
  • [9] IKNL, NKR cijfers
  • [10] Evaluating the impact of prediction models: lessons learned, challenges, and recommendations
    Teus H. Kappen
    Wilton A. van Klei
    Leo van Wolfswinkel
    Cor J. Kalkman
    Yvonne Vergouwe
    Karel G. M. Moons
    [J]. Diagnostic and Prognostic Research, 2 (1)