Project description:ObjectiveThe benefit of prophylactic repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) is based on the risk of rupture exceeding the risk of death from other comorbidities. The purpose of this study was to validate a 5-year survival prediction model for patients undergoing elective repair of asymptomatic AAA <6.5 cm to assist in optimal selection of patients.MethodsAll patients undergoing elective repair for asymptomatic AAA <6.5 cm (open or endovascular) from 2002 to 2011 were identified from a single institutional database (validation group). We assessed the ability of a prior published Vascular Study Group of New England (VSGNE) model (derivation group) to predict survival in our cohort. The model was assessed for discrimination (concordance index), calibration (calibration slope and calibration in the large), and goodness of fit (score test).ResultsThe VSGNE derivation group consisted of 2367 patients (70% endovascular). Major factors associated with survival in the derivation group were age, coronary disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, renal function, and antiplatelet and statin medication use. Our validation group consisted of 1038 patients (59% endovascular). The validation group was slightly older (74 vs 72 years; P < .01) and had a higher proportion of men (76% vs 68%; P < .01). In addition, the derivation group had higher rates of advanced cardiac disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and baseline creatinine concentration (1.2 vs 1.1 mg/dL; P < .01). Despite slight differences in preoperative patient factors, 5-year survival was similar between validation and derivation groups (75% vs 77%; P = .33). The concordance index of the validation group was identical between derivation and validation groups at 0.659 (95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.69). Our validation calibration in the large value was 1.02 (P = .62, closer to 1 indicating better calibration), calibration slope of 0.84 (95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.97), and score test of P = .57 (>.05 indicating goodness of fit).ConclusionsAcross different populations of patients, assessment of age and level of cardiac, pulmonary, and renal disease can accurately predict 5-year survival in patients with AAA <6.5 cm undergoing repair. This risk prediction model is a valid method to assess mortality risk in determining potential overall survival benefit from elective AAA repair.

Project description:Lung cancer is the second most fatal disease worldwide. In the last few years, radiomics is being explored to develop prediction models for various clinical endpoints in lung cancer. However, the robustness of radiomic features is under question and has been identified as one of the roadblocks in the implementation of a radiomic-based prediction model in the clinic. Many past studies have suggested identifying the robust radiomic feature to develop a prediction model. In our earlier study, we identified robust radiomic features for prediction model development. The objective of this study was to develop and validate the robust radiomic signatures for predicting 2-year overall survival in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This retrospective study included a cohort of 300 stage I-IV NSCLC patients. Institutional 200 patients' data were included for training and internal validation and 100 patients' data from The Cancer Image Archive (TCIA) open-source image repository for external validation. Radiomic features were extracted from the CT images of both cohorts. The feature selection was performed using hierarchical clustering, a Chi-squared test, and recursive feature elimination (RFE). In total, six prediction models were developed using random forest (RF-Model-O, RF-Model-B), gradient boosting (GB-Model-O, GB-Model-B), and support vector(SV-Model-O, SV-Model-B) classifiers to predict 2-year overall survival (OS) on original data as well as balanced data. Model validation was performed using 10-fold cross-validation, internal validation, and external validation. Using a multistep feature selection method, the overall top 10 features were chosen. On internal validation, the two random forest models (RF-Model-O, RF-Model-B) displayed the highest accuracy; their scores on the original and balanced datasets were 0.81 and 0.77 respectively. During external validation, both the random forest models' accuracy was 0.68. In our study, robust radiomic features showed promising predictive performance to predict 2-year overall survival in NSCLC.

Project description:IntroductionExternal validation studies are essential to study the generalizability of prediction models. Recently a permutation test, focusing on discrimination as quantified by the c-statistic, was proposed to judge whether a prediction model is transportable to a new setting. We aimed to evaluate this test and compare it to previously proposed procedures to judge any changes in c-statistic from development to external validation setting.MethodsWe compared the use of the permutation test to the use of benchmark values of the c-statistic following from a previously proposed framework to judge transportability of a prediction model. In a simulation study we developed a prediction model with logistic regression on a development set and validated them in the validation set. We concentrated on two scenarios: 1) the case-mix was more heterogeneous and predictor effects were weaker in the validation set compared to the development set, and 2) the case-mix was less heterogeneous in the validation set and predictor effects were identical in the validation and development set. Furthermore we illustrated the methods in a case study using 15 datasets of patients suffering from traumatic brain injury.ResultsThe permutation test indicated that the validation and development set were homogenous in scenario 1 (in almost all simulated samples) and heterogeneous in scenario 2 (in 17%-39% of simulated samples). Previously proposed benchmark values of the c-statistic and the standard deviation of the linear predictors correctly pointed at the more heterogeneous case-mix in scenario 1 and the less heterogeneous case-mix in scenario 2.ConclusionThe recently proposed permutation test may provide misleading results when externally validating prediction models in the presence of case-mix differences between the development and validation population. To correctly interpret the c-statistic found at external validation it is crucial to disentangle case-mix differences from incorrect regression coefficients.

Project description:Expression profiling of breast cancer tumours, comparing 10 year survivors to deceased patients Background It is of great significance to find better markers to correctly distinguish between high-risk and low-risk breast cancer patients since the majority of breast cancer cases are at present being overtreated. Methods 46 tumours from node-negative breast cancer patients were studied with gene expression microarrays. A t-test was carried out in order to find a set of genes where the expression might predict clinical outcome. Two classifiers were used to evaluate the gene lists on the different data sets, a correlation-based classifier and a VFI (Voting Features Interval) classifier. We then evaluated the predictive accuracy of this expression signature on tumour sets from two similar studies on lymph-node negative patients which had developed gene expression signatures superior to current methods in classifying node-negative breast tumours. These two signatures were also tested on our material. Results A list of 51 genes whose expression profiles could predict clinical outcome with high accuracy in our material (96% or 89% accuracy in cross-validation, depending on type of classifier) was developed. When tested on two independent data sets, the expression signature based on the 51 identified genes had good predictive qualities in one of the data sets (74% accuracy), whereas their predictive value on the other data set were poor, presumably due to the fact that only 23 of the 51 genes were found in that material. We also found that previously developed expression signatures could predict clinical outcome well to moderately well in our material (72% and 61%, respectively). Conclusion The list of 51 genes derived in this study might have potential for clinical utility as a prognostic gene set, and may include candidate genes of potential relevance for clinical outcome in breast cancer. According to the predictions by this expression signature, 30 of the 46 patients should have had different adjuvant treatment than they did. Keywords: Expression Microarray, Lymph-node-negative Breast Cancer, Clinical Outcome, Classification

Project description:BackgroundNo data is available on delirium prediction models in the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU), although preexisting delirium prediction models [PREdiction of DELIRium in ICu patients (PRE-DELIRIC) and Early PREdiction of DELIRium in ICu patients (E-PRE-DELIRIC)] were developed and validated based on a population admitted to the general intensive care unit (ICU). Therefore, we externally validated the usefulness of the PRE-DELIRIC and E-PRE-DELIRIC models and compared their predictive performance in patients admitted to the CICU.MethodsA total of 2,724 patients admitted to the CICU were enrolled between September 2012 and December 2018. Delirium was defined as at least one positive Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) which was screened at least once every 8 h. The PRE-DELIRIC value was calculated within 24 h of CICU admission, and the E-PRE-DELIRIC value was calculated at CICU admission. The predictive performance of the models was evaluated by using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve, and the calibration slope was assessed graphically by plotting.ResultsDelirium occurred in 677 patients (24.8%) when the patients were assessed thrice daily until 7 days of the CICU stay. The AUROC curve for the prediction of delirium was significantly greater for PRE-DELIRIC values [0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.82-0.86] than for E-PRE-DELIRIC values (0.79, 95% CI: 0.77-0.80) [z score of -6.24 (p < 0.001)]. Net reclassification improvement for the prediction of delirium increased by 0.27 (95% CI: 0.21-0.32, p < 0.001). Calibration was acceptable in the PRE-DELIRIC model (Hosmer-Lemeshow p = 0.170) but not in the E-PRE-DELIRIC model (Hosmer-Lemeshow p < 0.001).ConclusionAlthough both models have good predictive performance for the development of delirium, even in critically ill cardiac patients, the performance of the PRE-DELIRIC model might be superior to that of the E-PRE-DELIRIC model. Further studies are required to confirm our results and design a specific delirium prediction model for CICU patients.

Project description:BackgroundMany dementia prediction models have been developed, but only few have been externally validated, which hinders clinical uptake and may pose a risk if models are applied to actual patients regardless. Externally validating an existing prediction model is a difficult task, where we mostly rely on the completeness of model reporting in a published article. In this study, we aim to externally validate existing dementia prediction models. To that end, we define model reporting criteria, review published studies, and externally validate three well reported models using routinely collected health data from administrative claims and electronic health records.MethodsWe identified dementia prediction models that were developed between 2011 and 2020 and assessed if they could be externally validated given a set of model criteria. In addition, we externally validated three of these models (Walters' Dementia Risk Score, Mehta's RxDx-Dementia Risk Index, and Nori's ADRD dementia prediction model) on a network of six observational health databases from the United States, United Kingdom, Germany and the Netherlands, including the original development databases of the models.ResultsWe reviewed 59 dementia prediction models. All models reported the prediction method, development database, and target and outcome definitions. Less frequently reported by these 59 prediction models were predictor definitions (52 models) including the time window in which a predictor is assessed (21 models), predictor coefficients (20 models), and the time-at-risk (42 models). The validation of the model by Walters (development c-statistic: 0.84) showed moderate transportability (0.67-0.76 c-statistic). The Mehta model (development c-statistic: 0.81) transported well to some of the external databases (0.69-0.79 c-statistic). The Nori model (development AUROC: 0.69) transported well (0.62-0.68 AUROC) but performed modestly overall. Recalibration showed improvements for the Walters and Nori models, while recalibration could not be assessed for the Mehta model due to unreported baseline hazard.ConclusionWe observed that reporting is mostly insufficient to fully externally validate published dementia prediction models, and therefore, it is uncertain how well these models would work in other clinical settings. We emphasize the importance of following established guidelines for reporting clinical prediction models. We recommend that reporting should be more explicit and have external validation in mind if the model is meant to be applied in different settings.

Project description:Purpose: We aimed to develop and validate a novel gene signature from published data and improve the prediction of survival in muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). Methods: We searched the published gene signatures associated with the overall survival (OS) of MIBC and compiled all 274 genes to develop a novel gene signature. RNAseq data of TCGA (the Cancer Genome Atlas) bladder cohort were downloaded. All genes were included in a univariate Cox hazard ratio model. We then used a reduced multivariate Cox regression model, which included only genes achieving P < 0.05 in the univariate model. A total of 172 patients at Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center (FUSCC) and 61 patients from GEO datasets were used as an external validation set. Results: A total of 327 patients in the TCGA cohort were enrolled. We identified 274 genes from eight published papers on the OS of MIBC. Using the TCGA database, we identified 12 genes that correlated with OS (P < 0.05 in both univariate and multivariate analyses). By integrating these genes with the RT-qPCR data in our validation dataset and GEO datasets, we confirmed that the power for predicting OS of the 12-gene panel (AUC of 0.741 and 0.727, respectively) was higher than just clinical data (including gender, age, T stage, grade, and N stage) alone in the TCGA and FUSCC cohort (AUC of 0.667 and 0.631, respectively). Additionally, upon combining the clinical data and 12-gene panel together, the AUC increased to 0.768, 0.757, and 0.88 in the TCGA, FUSCC and GSE13507 cohorts, respectively. Conclusions: Applying published gene signatures and TCGA data, we successfully built and externally validated a novel 12-gene signature for the survival of MIBC.Brief explanationWe systemically reviewed all published prognostic gene signatures of muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) and integrated the genes in the TCGA MIBC cohort. This new gene panel was validated in a newly established MIBC cohort in GEO and FUSCC. This method can help update the previous established panels in a new way.

Project description:Expression profiling of breast cancer tumours, comparing 10 year survivors to deceased patients Background It is of great significance to find better markers to correctly distinguish between high-risk and low-risk breast cancer patients since the majority of breast cancer cases are at present being overtreated. Methods 46 tumours from node-negative breast cancer patients were studied with gene expression microarrays. A t-test was carried out in order to find a set of genes where the expression might predict clinical outcome. Two classifiers were used to evaluate the gene lists on the different data sets, a correlation-based classifier and a VFI (Voting Features Interval) classifier. We then evaluated the predictive accuracy of this expression signature on tumour sets from two similar studies on lymph-node negative patients which had developed gene expression signatures superior to current methods in classifying node-negative breast tumours. These two signatures were also tested on our material. Results A list of 51 genes whose expression profiles could predict clinical outcome with high accuracy in our material (96% or 89% accuracy in cross-validation, depending on type of classifier) was developed. When tested on two independent data sets, the expression signature based on the 51 identified genes had good predictive qualities in one of the data sets (74% accuracy), whereas their predictive value on the other data set were poor, presumably due to the fact that only 23 of the 51 genes were found in that material. We also found that previously developed expression signatures could predict clinical outcome well to moderately well in our material (72% and 61%, respectively). Conclusion The list of 51 genes derived in this study might have potential for clinical utility as a prognostic gene set, and may include candidate genes of potential relevance for clinical outcome in breast cancer. According to the predictions by this expression signature, 30 of the 46 patients should have had different adjuvant treatment than they did. Keywords: Expression Microarray, Lymph-node-negative Breast Cancer, Clinical Outcome, Classification 23 fresh frozen primary node negative breast cancer tumours from 10 year survivors were compared to 23 tumours from deceased patients in order to find genes where the expression differed between the two groups Microarrays were produced at the Swegene DNA Microarray Resource Center, Department of Oncology, Lund University, Sweden (http://swegene.onk.lu.se). Frozen tumours were homogenized together with TRIzol Reagent (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA). From the cell-suspension total RNA was extracted using RNeasy mini kit (Qiagen, Valencia, CA, USA) according to the manufacturer’s protocol. The quality of the RNA was evaluated with the Agilent 2100 BioAnalyser (Agilent Technologies, Palo Alto, CA, USA). Specimens where the 28S/16S ratio was lower than 1.0 or the RIN-value was lower than 6.7 were excluded from the study. For each sample, Cy3-dCTP (Amersham Biosciences, Buckinghamshire, UK) labelled probes were synthesized from 5 µg of the total tumour RNA and Cy5-dCTP (Amersham Biosciences) labelled reference were synthesized from 5 µg of commercial reference RNA (Universal Human Reference RNA, Stratagene, La Jolla, CA, USA) by reverse transcription. The probes were purified using ChipShot™ labelling cleanup system (Promega, Madison, WI, USA). The hybridizations were carried out using Pronto! Micro Array reagent systems (Corning Inc., Corning, NY, USA). For each sample, labelled tumour cDNA and reference cDNA were co-precipitated and hybridised to the microarray slide. The microarray slides were scanned with Agilent microarray scanner G2565AA (Agilent Technologies) and image analysis was performed using the Genepix 6.0.0.45 software (Axon Instruments, Union City, CA, USA).

Dataset Information

Development and External Validation of Prediction Models for 10-Year Survival of Invasive Breast Cancer. Comparison with PREDICT and CancerMath.

Publications

Development and External Validation of Prediction Models for 10-Year Survival of Invasive Breast Cancer. Comparison with PREDICT and CancerMath.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets