Dataset Information

External validation of three prognostic models for overall survival in patients with advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Background

For various malignancies, prognostic models have shown to be superior to traditional staging systems in predicting overall survival. The purpose of this study was to validate and compare the performance of three prognostic models for overall survival in patients with advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer.

Methods

A multi-institutional epithelial ovarian cancer database was used to identify patients and to evaluate the predictive performance of two nomograms, a prognostic index and FIGO (International Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecology) stage. All patients were treated for advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer between January 1996 and January 2009 in 11 hospitals in the eastern part of The Netherlands.

Results

In total, 542 patients were found to be eligible. Overall performance did not differ between the three prognostic models and FIGO stage. The discriminative performance for Chi's model was moderately good (c indices 0.65 and 0.68) and for the models of Gerestein and Teramukai reasonable (c indices between 0.60 and 0.62). The c indices of FIGO stage ranged between 0.54 and 0.62. After recalibration, the three models showed almost perfect calibration, whereas calibration of FIGO stage was reasonable.

Conclusion

The three prediction models showed general applicability and a reasonably well-predictive performance, especially in comparison to FIGO stage. To date, there are no studies available that analyse the impact of these prognostic models on decision-making and patient outcome. Therefore, the usefulness of these models in daily clinical practice remains to be investigated.

SUBMITTER: van de Laar R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3887305 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

External validation of three prognostic models for overall survival in patients with advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer.

van de Laar R R IntHout J J Van Gorp T T Verdonschot S S van Altena A M AM Gerestein C G CG Massuger L F A G LF Zusterzeel P L M PL Kruitwagen R F P M RF

British journal of cancer 20131119 1

<h4>Background</h4>For various malignancies, prognostic models have shown to be superior to traditional staging systems in predicting overall survival. The purpose of this study was to validate and compare the performance of three prognostic models for overall survival in patients with advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer.<h4>Methods</h4>A multi-institutional epithelial ovarian cancer database was used to identify patients and to evaluate the predictive performance of two nomograms, a progno ...[more]

PMID: 24253502

Similar Datasets

Project description:We propose a cost-effective sampling design and estimating procedure for validating personal risk models using right-censored cohort data. Validation involves using each subject's covariates, as ascertained at cohort entry, in a risk model (specified independently of the data) to assign him/her a probability of an adverse outcome within a future time period. Subjects are then grouped according to the magnitudes of their assigned risks, and within each group, the mean assigned risk is compared with the probability of outcome occurrence as estimated using the follow-up data. Such validation presents two complications. First, in the presence of right-censoring, estimating the probability of developing the outcomes before death requires competing risk analysis. Second, for rare outcomes, validation using the full cohort requires assembling covariates and assigning risks to thousands of subjects. This can be costly when some covariates involve analyzing biological specimens. A two-stage sampling design addresses this problem by assembling covariates and assigning risks only to those subjects most informative for estimating key parameters. We use this design to estimate the outcome probabilities needed to evaluate model performance and we provide theoretical and bootstrap estimates of their variances. We also describe how to choose two-stage designs with minimal efficiency loss for a parameter of interest when the quantities determining optimality are unknown at the time of design. We illustrate these methods by using subjects in the California Teachers Study to validate ovarian cancer risk models. We find that a design with optimal efficiency for one performance parameter need not be so for others, and trade-offs will be required. A two-stage design that samples all outcome-positive subjects and more outcome-negative than censored subjects will perform well in most circumstances. The methods are implemented in Risk Model Assessment Program, an R program freely available at http://med.stanford.edu/epidemiology/two-stage.html.

Project description:BackgroundSeveral prognostic models for outcomes after chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) treatment have been published in recent years. However, these models are not sufficiently validated for use in daily clinical practice. We aimed to assess the performance of existing prediction models for outcomes in patients diagnosed with CSDH.MethodsWe systematically searched relevant literature databases up to February 2021 to identify prognostic models for outcome prediction in patients diagnosed with CSDH. For the external validation of prognostic models, we used a retrospective database, containing data of 2384 patients from three Dutch regions. Prognostic models were included if they predicted either mortality, hematoma recurrence, functional outcome, or quality of life. Models were excluded when predictors were absent in our database or available for < 150 patients in our database. We assessed calibration, and discrimination (quantified by the concordance index C) of the included prognostic models in our retrospective database.ResultsWe identified 1680 original publications of which 1656 were excluded based on title or abstract, mostly because they did not concern CSDH or did not define a prognostic model. Out of 18 identified models, three could be externally validated in our retrospective database: a model for 30-day mortality in 1656 patients, a model for 2 months, and another for 3-month hematoma recurrence both in 1733 patients. The models overestimated the proportion of patients with these outcomes by 11% (15% predicted vs. 4% observed), 1% (10% vs. 9%), and 2% (11% vs. 9%), respectively. Their discriminative ability was poor to modest (C of 0.70 [0.63-0.77]; 0.46 [0.35-0.56]; 0.59 [0.51-0.66], respectively).ConclusionsNone of the examined models showed good predictive performance for outcomes after CSDH treatment in our dataset. This study confirms the difficulty in predicting outcomes after CSDH and emphasizes the heterogeneity of CSDH patients. The importance of developing high-quality models by using unified predictors and relevant outcome measures and appropriate modeling strategies is warranted.

Project description:BackgroundPre-eclampsia is a leading cause of maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity. Early identification of women at risk during pregnancy is required to plan management. Although there are many published prediction models for pre-eclampsia, few have been validated in external data. Our objective was to externally validate published prediction models for pre-eclampsia using individual participant data (IPD) from UK studies, to evaluate whether any of the models can accurately predict the condition when used within the UK healthcare setting.MethodsIPD from 11 UK cohort studies (217,415 pregnant women) within the International Prediction of Pregnancy Complications (IPPIC) pre-eclampsia network contributed to external validation of published prediction models, identified by systematic review. Cohorts that measured all predictor variables in at least one of the identified models and reported pre-eclampsia as an outcome were included for validation. We reported the model predictive performance as discrimination (C-statistic), calibration (calibration plots, calibration slope, calibration-in-the-large), and net benefit. Performance measures were estimated separately in each available study and then, where possible, combined across studies in a random-effects meta-analysis.ResultsOf 131 published models, 67 provided the full model equation and 24 could be validated in 11 UK cohorts. Most of the models showed modest discrimination with summary C-statistics between 0.6 and 0.7. The calibration of the predicted compared to observed risk was generally poor for most models with observed calibration slopes less than 1, indicating that predictions were generally too extreme, although confidence intervals were wide. There was large between-study heterogeneity in each model's calibration-in-the-large, suggesting poor calibration of the predicted overall risk across populations. In a subset of models, the net benefit of using the models to inform clinical decisions appeared small and limited to probability thresholds between 5 and 7%.ConclusionsThe evaluated models had modest predictive performance, with key limitations such as poor calibration (likely due to overfitting in the original development datasets), substantial heterogeneity, and small net benefit across settings. The evidence to support the use of these prediction models for pre-eclampsia in clinical decision-making is limited. Any models that we could not validate should be examined in terms of their predictive performance, net benefit, and heterogeneity across multiple UK settings before consideration for use in practice.Trial registrationPROSPERO ID: CRD42015029349 .

Dataset Information

External validation of three prognostic models for overall survival in patients with advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

External validation of three prognostic models for overall survival in patients with advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets