Independent validation of the PREDICT breast cancer prognosis prediction tool in 45,789 patients using Scottish Cancer Registry data

被引:41
作者
Gray, Ewan [1 ]
Marti, Joachim [2 ]
Brewster, David H. [1 ]
Wyatt, Jeremy C. [3 ]
Hall, Peter S. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Midlothian, Scotland
[2] Univ Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
[3] Univ Southampton, Southampton, Hants, England
关键词
MODEL;
D O I
10.1038/s41416-018-0256-x
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
BACKGROUND: PREDICT is a widely used online prognostication and treatment benefit tool for patients with early stage breast cancer. The aim of this study was to conduct an independent validation exercise of the most up-to-date version of the PREDICT algorithm (version 2) using real-world outcomes from the Scottish population of women with breast cancer. METHODS: Patient data were obtained for all Scottish Cancer Registry (SCR) records with a diagnosis of primary invasive breast cancer diagnosed in the period between January 2001 and December 2015. Prognostic scores were calculated using the PREDICT version 2 algorithm. External validity was assessed by statistical analysis of discrimination and calibration. Discrimination was assessed by area under the receiver-operator curve (AUC). Calibration was assessed by comparing the predicted number of deaths to the observed number of deaths across relevant sub-groups. RESULTS: A total of 45,789 eligible cases were selected from 61,437 individual records. AUC statistics ranged from 0.74 to 0.77. Calibration results showed relatively close agreement between predicted and observed deaths. The 5-year complete follow-up sample reported some overestimation (11.5%), while the 10-year complete follow-up sample displayed more limited overestimation (1.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Validation results suggest that the PREDICT tool remains essentially relevant for contemporary patients with early stage breast cancer.
引用
收藏
页码:808 / 814
页数:7
相关论文
共 15 条
[1]   Comparisons between different polychemotherapy regimens for early breast cancer: meta-analyses of long-term outcome among 100 000 women in 123 randomised trials [J].
Albain, K. ;
Anderson, S. ;
Arriagada, R. ;
Barlow, W. ;
Bergh, J. ;
Bliss, J. ;
Buyse, M. ;
Cameron, D. ;
Carrasco, E. ;
Clarke, M. ;
Correa, C. ;
Coates, A. ;
Collins, R. ;
Costantino, J. ;
Cutter, D. ;
Cuzick, J. ;
Darby, S. ;
Davidson, N. ;
Davies, C. ;
Davies, K. ;
Delmestri, A. ;
Di Leo, A. ;
Dowsett, M. ;
Elphinstone, P. ;
Evans, V. ;
Ewertz, M. ;
Gelber, R. ;
Gettins, L. ;
Geyer, C. ;
Goldhirsch, A. ;
Godwin, J. ;
Gray, R. ;
Gregory, C. ;
Hayes, D. ;
Hill, C. ;
Ingle, J. ;
Jakesz, R. ;
James, S. ;
Kaufmann, M. ;
Kerr, A. ;
MacKinnon, E. ;
McGale, P. ;
McHugh, T. ;
Norton, L. ;
Ohashi, Y. ;
Paik, S. ;
Pan, H. C. ;
Perez, E. ;
Peto, R. ;
Piccart, M. .
LANCET, 2012, 379 (9814) :432-444
[2]   An updated PREDICT breast cancer prognostication and treatment benefit prediction model with independent validation [J].
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. .
BREAST CANCER RESEARCH, 2017, 19
[3]  
Collins GS, 2015, BMJ-BRIT MED J, V350, DOI [10.1136/bmj.g7594, 10.1111/1471-0528.13244]
[4]   Validity of the online PREDICT tool in older patients with breast cancer: a population-based study [J].
de Glas, N. A. ;
Bastiaannet, E. ;
Engels, C. C. ;
de Craen, A. J. M. ;
Putter, H. ;
van de Velde, C. J. H. ;
Hurria, A. ;
Liefers, G. J. ;
Portielje, J. E. A. .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2016, 114 (04) :395-400
[5]   EVALUATING THE YIELD OF MEDICAL TESTS [J].
HARRELL, FE ;
CALIFF, RM ;
PRYOR, DB ;
LEE, KL ;
ROSATI, RA .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1982, 247 (18) :2543-2546
[6]  
Healthcare Improvement Scotland, 2016, EXT ASS PERF CANC QU
[7]   A simplified method of calculating an overall goodness-of-fit test for the cox proportional hazards model [J].
May, S ;
Hosmer, DW .
LIFETIME DATA ANALYSIS, 1998, 4 (02) :109-120
[8]  
Office for National Statistics, 2017, DEATHS REG AR US RES
[9]  
Rubin DB, 1987, Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys
[10]   Multiple imputation of discrete and continuous data by fully conditional specification [J].
van Buuren, Stef .
STATISTICAL METHODS IN MEDICAL RESEARCH, 2007, 16 (03) :219-242