Dataset Information

Estimating the OncotypeDX score: validation of an inexpensive estimation tool.

ABSTRACT: OncotypeDX, a multi-gene expression assay, has been incorporated into clinical practice as a prognostic and predictive tool. However, its use in resource-constrained international healthcare systems is limited. Here we develop and validate a simplified model using clinicopathologic criteria to predict OncotypeDX score.Patients with estrogen receptor (ER) and/or progesterone receptor (PR)-positive and HER2-negative invasive ductal carcinoma for whom the OncotypeDX test was successfully performed between 09/2008 and 12/2011 were retrospectively identified. Tumor size, nuclear and histologic grade, lymphovascular invasion, and ER and PR status were extracted from pathology reports. Data were split into a training dataset comprising women tested 09/2008-04/2011, and a validation dataset comprising women tested 04/2011-12/2011. Using the training dataset, linear regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with OncotypeDX score, and to create a simplified risk score and identify risk cutoffs.Estrogen and progesterone receptors, tumor size, nuclear and histologic grades, and lymphovascular involvement were independently associated with OncotypeDX. The full model explained 39% of the variation in the test data, and the simplified risk score and cutoffs assigned 57% of patients in the test data to the correct risk category (OncotypeDX score <18, 18-30, >30). 41% of patients were predicted to have OncotypeDX score <18, of these 83, 16, and 2% had true scores of <18, 18-30, and >30, respectively.Awaiting an inexpensive test that is prognostic and predictive, our simplified tool allows clinicians to identify a fairly large group of patients (41%) with very low chance of having high-risk disease (2%).

SUBMITTER: Eaton AA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5310948 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Estimating the OncotypeDX score: validation of an inexpensive estimation tool.

Eaton Anne A AA Pesce Catherine E CE Murphy James O JO Stempel Michelle M MM Patil Sujata M SM Brogi Edi E Hudis Clifford A CA El-Tamer Mahmoud M

Breast cancer research and treatment 20161207 3

<h4>Background</h4>OncotypeDX, a multi-gene expression assay, has been incorporated into clinical practice as a prognostic and predictive tool. However, its use in resource-constrained international healthcare systems is limited. Here we develop and validate a simplified model using clinicopathologic criteria to predict OncotypeDX score.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients with estrogen receptor (ER) and/or progesterone receptor (PR)-positive and HER2-negative invasive ductal carcinoma for whom the Oncotype ...[more]

PMID: 27928699

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveDevelop and validate a prognostic model for clinical deterioration or death within days of pulmonary embolism (PE) diagnosis using point-of-care criteria.MethodsWe used prospective registry data from six emergency departments. The primary composite outcome was death or deterioration (respiratory failure, cardiac arrest, new dysrhythmia, sustained hypotension, and rescue reperfusion intervention) within 5 days. Candidate predictors included laboratory and imaging right ventricle (RV) assessments. The prognostic model was developed from 935 PE patients. Univariable analysis of 138 candidate variables was followed by penalized and standard logistic regression on 26 retained variables, and then tested with a validation database (N = 801).ResultsLogistic regression yielded a nine-variable model, then simplified to a nine-point tool (PE-SCORE): one point each for abnormal RV by echocardiography, abnormal RV by computed tomography, systolic blood pressure < 100 mmHg, dysrhythmia, suspected/confirmed systemic infection, syncope, medico-social admission reason, abnormal heart rate, and two points for creatinine greater than 2.0 mg/dL. In the development database, 22.4% had the primary outcome. Prognostic accuracy of logistic regression model versus PE-SCORE model: 0.83 (0.80, 0.86) vs. 0.78 (0.75, 0.82) using area under the curve (AUC) and 0.61 (0.57, 0.64) vs. 0.50 (0.39, 0.60) using precision-recall curve (AUCpr). In the validation database, 26.6% had the primary outcome. PE-SCORE had AUC 0.77 (0.73, 0.81) and AUCpr 0.63 (0.43, 0.81). As points increased, outcome proportions increased: a score of zero had 2% outcome, whereas scores of six and above had ≥ 69.6% outcomes. In the validation dataset, PE-SCORE zero had 8% outcome [no deaths], whereas all patients with PE-SCORE of six and above had the primary outcome.ConclusionsPE-SCORE model identifies PE patients at low- and high-risk for deterioration and may help guide decisions about early outpatient management versus need for hospital-based monitoring.

Project description:BackgroundEmergency readmission poses an additional burden on both patients and healthcare systems. Risk stratification is the first step of transitional care interventions targeted at reducing readmission. To accurately predict the short- and intermediate-term risks of readmission and provide information for further temporal risk stratification, we developed and validated an interpretable machine learning risk scoring system.MethodsIn this retrospective study, all emergency admission episodes from January 1st 2009 to December 31st 2016 at a tertiary hospital in Singapore were assessed. The primary outcome was time to emergency readmission within 90 days post discharge. The Score for Emergency ReAdmission Prediction (SERAP) tool was derived via an interpretable machine learning-based system for time-to-event outcomes. SERAP is six-variable survival score, and takes the number of emergency admissions last year, age, history of malignancy, history of renal diseases, serum creatinine level, and serum albumin level during index admission into consideration.FindingsA total of 293,589 ED admission episodes were finally included in the whole cohort. Among them, 203,748 episodes were included in the training cohort, 50,937 episodes in the validation cohort, and 38,904 in the testing cohort. Readmission within 90 days was documented in 80,213 (27.3%) episodes, with a median time to emergency readmission of 22 days (Interquartile range: 8-47). For different time points, the readmission rates observed in the whole cohort were 6.7% at 7 days, 10.6% at 14 days, 13.6% at 21 days, 16.4% at 30 days, and 23.0% at 60 days. In the testing cohort, the SERAP achieved an integrated area under the curve of 0.737 (95% confidence interval: 0.730-0.743). For a specific 30-day readmission prediction, SERAP outperformed the LACE index (Length of stay, Acuity of admission, Charlson comorbidity index, and Emergency department visits in past six months) and the HOSPITAL score (Hemoglobin at discharge, discharge from an Oncology service, Sodium level at discharge, Procedure during the index admission, Index Type of admission, number of Admissions during the last 12 months, and Length of stay). Besides 30-day readmission, SERAP can predict readmission rates at any time point during the 90-day period.InterpretationBetter performance in risk prediction was achieved by the SERAP than other existing scores, and accurate information about time to emergency readmission was generated for further temporal risk stratification and clinical decision-making. In the future, external validation studies are needed to evaluate the SERAP at different settings and assess their real-world performance.FundingThis study was supported by the Singapore National Medical Research Council under the PULSES Center Grant, and Duke-NUS Medical School.

Project description:BackgroundWorldwide, nearly 800,000 individuals die by suicide each year; however, longitudinal prediction of suicide attempts remains a major challenge within the field of psychiatry. The objective of the present research was to develop and evaluate an evidence-based suicide attempt risk checklist [i.e., the Durham Risk Score (DRS)] to aid clinicians in the identification of individuals at risk for attempting suicide in the future.Methods and findingsThree prospective cohort studies, including a population-based study from the United States [i.e., the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC) study] as well as 2 smaller US veteran cohorts [i.e., the Assessing and Reducing Post-Deployment Violence Risk (REHAB) and the Veterans After-Discharge Longitudinal Registry (VALOR) studies], were used to develop and validate the DRS. From a total sample size of 35,654 participants, 17,630 participants were selected to develop the checklist, whereas the remaining participants (N = 18,024) were used to validate it. The main outcome measure was future suicide attempts (i.e., actual suicide attempts that occurred after the baseline assessment during the 1- to 3-year follow-up period). Measure development began with a review of the extant literature to identify potential variables that had substantial empirical support as longitudinal predictors of suicide attempts and deaths. Next, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was utilized to identify variables from the literature review that uniquely contributed to the longitudinal prediction of suicide attempts in the development cohorts. We observed that the DRS was a robust prospective predictor of future suicide attempts in both the combined development (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.91) and validation (AUC = 0.92) cohorts. A concentration of risk analysis found that across all 35,654 participants, 82% of prospective suicide attempts occurred among individuals in the top 15% of DRS scores, whereas 27% occurred in the top 1%. The DRS also performed well among important subgroups, including women (AUC = 0.91), men (AUC = 0.93), Black (AUC = 0.92), White (AUC = 0.93), Hispanic (AUC = 0.89), veterans (AUC = 0.91), lower-income individuals (AUC = 0.90), younger adults (AUC = 0.88), and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer or questioning (LGBTQ) individuals (AUC = 0.88). The primary limitation of the present study was its its reliance on secondary data analyses to develop and validate the risk score.ConclusionsIn this study, we observed that the DRS was a strong predictor of future suicide attempts in both the combined development (AUC = 0.91) and validation (AUC = 0.92) cohorts. It also demonstrated good utility in many important subgroups, including women, men, Black, White, Hispanic, veterans, lower-income individuals, younger adults, and LGBTQ individuals. We further observed that 82% of prospective suicide attempts occurred among individuals in the top 15% of DRS scores, whereas 27% occurred in the top 1%. Taken together, these findings suggest that the DRS represents a significant advancement in suicide risk prediction over traditional clinical assessment approaches. While more work is needed to independently validate the DRS in prospective studies and to identify the optimal methods to assess the constructs used to calculate the score, our findings suggest that the DRS is a promising new tool that has the potential to significantly enhance clinicians' ability to identify individuals at risk for attempting suicide in the future.

Project description:Under-recognition of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) by clinicians is an important barrier to adoption of evidence-based practices such as low tidal volume ventilation. The burden created by the COVID-19 pandemic makes it even more critical to develop scalable data-driven tools to improve ARDS recognition. The objective of this study was to validate a tool for accurately estimating clinician ARDS recognition rates using discrete clinical characteristics easily available in electronic health records. We conducted a secondary analysis of 2,705 ARDS and 1,261 non-ARDS hypoxemic patients in the international LUNG SAFE cohort. The primary outcome was validation of a tool that estimates clinician ARDS recognition rates from health record data. Secondary outcomes included the relative impact of clinical characteristics on tidal volume delivery and clinician documentation of ARDS. In both ARDS and non-ARDS patients, greater height was associated with lower standardized tidal volume (mL/kg PBW) (ARDS: adjusted β = -4.1, 95% CI -4.5 --3.6; non-ARDS: β = -7.7, 95% CI -8.8 --6.7, P<0.00009 [where α = 0.01/111 with the Bonferroni correction]). Standardized tidal volume has already been normalized for patient height, and furthermore, height was not associated with clinician documentation of ARDS. Worsening hypoxemia was associated with both increased clinician documentation of ARDS (β = -0.074, 95% CI -0.093 --0.056, P<0.00009) and lower standardized tidal volume (β = 1.3, 95% CI 0.94-1.6, P<0.00009) in ARDS patients. Increasing chest imaging opacities, plateau pressure, and clinician documentation of ARDS also were associated with lower tidal volume in ARDS patients. Our EHR-based data-driven approach using height, gender, ARDS documentation, and lowest standardized tidal volume yielded estimates of clinician ARDS recognition rates of 54% for mild, 63% for moderate, and 73% for severe ARDS. Our tool replicated clinician-reported ARDS recognition in the LUNG SAFE study, enabling the identification of ARDS patients at high risk of being unrecognized. Our approach can be generalized to other conditions for which there is a need to increase adoption of evidence-based care.

Dataset Information

Estimating the OncotypeDX score: validation of an inexpensive estimation tool.

Publications

Estimating the OncotypeDX score: validation of an inexpensive estimation tool.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets