Dataset Information

Prediction models for prostate cancer to be used in the primary care setting: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To identify risk prediction models for prostate cancer (PCa) that can be used in the primary care and community health settings. DESIGN:Systematic review. DATA SOURCES:MEDLINE and Embase databases combined from inception and up to the end of January 2019. ELIGIBILITY:Studies were included based on satisfying all the following criteria: (i) presenting an evaluation of PCa risk at initial biopsy in patients with no history of PCa, (ii) studies not incorporating an invasive clinical assessment or expensive biomarker/genetic tests, (iii) inclusion of at least two variables with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) being one of them, and (iv) studies reporting a measure of predictive performance. The quality of the studies and risk of bias was assessed by using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Relevant information extracted for each model included: the year of publication, source of data, type of model, number of patients, country, age, PSA range, mean/median PSA, other variables included in the model, number of biopsy cores to assess outcomes, study endpoint(s), cancer detection, model validation and model performance. RESULTS:An initial search yielded 109 potential studies, of which five met the set criteria. Four studies were cohort-based and one was a case-control study. PCa detection rate was between 20.6% and 55.8%. Area under the curve (AUC) was reported in four studies and ranged from 0.65 to 0.75. All models showed significant improvement in predicting PCa compared with being based on PSA alone. The difference in AUC between extended models and PSA alone was between 0.06 and 0.21. CONCLUSION:Only a few PCa risk prediction models have the potential to be readily used in the primary healthcare or community health setting. Further studies are needed to investigate other potential variables that could be integrated into models to improve their clinical utility for PCa testing in a community setting.

SUBMITTER: Aladwani M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7371149 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Prediction models for prostate cancer to be used in the primary care setting: a systematic review.

Aladwani Mohammad M Lophatananon Artitaya A Ollier William W Muir Kenneth K

BMJ open 20200719 7

<h4>Objective</h4>To identify risk prediction models for prostate cancer (PCa) that can be used in the primary care and community health settings.<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review.<h4>Data sources</h4>MEDLINE and Embase databases combined from inception and up to the end of January 2019.<h4>Eligibility</h4>Studies were included based on satisfying all the following criteria: (i) presenting an evaluation of PCa risk at initial biopsy in patients with no history of PCa, (ii) studies not incorporati ...[more]

PMID: 32690501

Similar Datasets

Project description:Aims/hypothesisThe aims of this study were to identify all published prognostic models predicting retinopathy risk applicable to people with type 2 diabetes, to assess their quality and accuracy, and to validate their predictive accuracy in a head-to-head comparison using an independent type 2 diabetes cohort.MethodsA systematic search was performed in PubMed and Embase in December 2019. Studies that met the following criteria were included: (1) the model was applicable in type 2 diabetes; (2) the outcome was retinopathy; and (3) follow-up was more than 1 year. Screening, data extraction (using the checklist for critical appraisal and data extraction for systemic reviews of prediction modelling studies [CHARMS]) and risk of bias assessment (by prediction model risk of bias assessment tool [PROBAST]) were performed independently by two reviewers. Selected models were externally validated in the large Hoorn Diabetes Care System (DCS) cohort in the Netherlands. Retinopathy risk was calculated using baseline data and compared with retinopathy incidence over 5 years. Calibration after intercept adjustment and discrimination (Harrell's C statistic) were assessed.ResultsTwelve studies were included in the systematic review, reporting on 16 models. Outcomes ranged from referable retinopathy to blindness. Discrimination was reported in seven studies with C statistics ranging from 0.55 (95% CI 0.54, 0.56) to 0.84 (95% CI 0.78, 0.88). Five studies reported on calibration. Eight models could be compared head-to-head in the DCS cohort (N = 10,715). Most of the models underestimated retinopathy risk. Validating the models against different severities of retinopathy, C statistics ranged from 0.51 (95% CI 0.49, 0.53) to 0.89 (95% CI 0.88, 0.91).Conclusions/interpretationSeveral prognostic models can accurately predict retinopathy risk in a population-based type 2 diabetes cohort. Most of the models include easy-to-measure predictors enhancing their applicability. Tailoring retinopathy screening frequency based on accurate risk predictions may increase the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of diabetic retinopathy care.RegistrationPROSPERO registration ID CRD42018089122.

Project description:ObjectiveTo validate all diagnostic prediction models for ruling out pulmonary embolism that are easily applicable in primary care.DesignSystematic review followed by independent external validation study to assess transportability of retrieved models to primary care medicine.Setting300 general practices in the Netherlands.ParticipantsIndividual patient dataset of 598 patients with suspected acute pulmonary embolism in primary care.Main outcome measuresDiscriminative ability of all models retrieved by systematic literature search, assessed by calculation and comparison of C statistics. After stratification into groups with high and low probability of pulmonary embolism according to pre-specified model cut-offs combined with qualitative D-dimer test, sensitivity, specificity, efficiency (overall proportion of patients with low probability of pulmonary embolism), and failure rate (proportion of pulmonary embolism cases in group of patients with low probability) were calculated for all models.ResultsTen published prediction models for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism were found. Five of these models could be validated in the primary care dataset: the original Wells, modified Wells, simplified Wells, revised Geneva, and simplified revised Geneva models. Discriminative ability was comparable for all models (range of C statistic 0.75-0.80). Sensitivity ranged from 88% (simplified revised Geneva) to 96% (simplified Wells) and specificity from 48% (revised Geneva) to 53% (simplified revised Geneva). Efficiency of all models was between 43% and 48%. Differences were observed between failure rates, especially between the simplified Wells and the simplified revised Geneva models (failure rates 1.2% (95% confidence interval 0.2% to 3.3%) and 3.1% (1.4% to 5.9%), respectively; absolute difference -1.98% (-3.33% to -0.74%)). Irrespective of the diagnostic prediction model used, three patients were incorrectly classified as having low probability of pulmonary embolism; pulmonary embolism was diagnosed only after referral to secondary care.ConclusionsFive diagnostic pulmonary embolism prediction models that are easily applicable in primary care were validated in this setting. Whereas efficiency was comparable for all rules, the Wells rules gave the best performance in terms of lower failure rates.

Project description:Background and aimsIn our current healthcare situation, burden on healthcare services is increasing, with higher costs and increased utilization. Structured population health management has been developed as an approach to balance quality with increasing costs. This approach identifies sub-populations with comparable health risks, to tailor interventions for those that will benefit the most. Worldwide, the use of routine healthcare data extracted from electronic health registries for risk stratification approaches is increasing. Different risk stratification tools are used on different levels of the healthcare continuum. In this systematic literature review, we aimed to explore which tools are used in primary healthcare settings and assess their performance.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature review of studies applying risk stratification tools with health outcomes in primary care populations. Studies in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries published in English-language journals were included. Search engines were utilized with keywords, for example, "primary care," "risk stratification," and "model." Risk stratification tools were compared based on different measures: area under the curve (AUC) and C-statistics for dichotomous outcomes and R 2 for continuous outcomes.ResultsThe search provided 4718 articles. Specific election criteria such as primary care populations, generic health utilization outcomes, and routinely collected data sources identified 61 articles, reporting on 31 different models. The three most frequently applied models were the Adjusted Clinical Groups (ACG, n = 23), the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI, n = 19), and the Hierarchical Condition Categories (HCC, n = 7). Most AUC and C-statistic values were above 0.7, with ACG showing slightly improved scores compared with the CCI and HCC (typically between 0.6 and 0.7).ConclusionBased on statistical performance, the validity of the ACG was the highest, followed by the CCI and the HCC. The ACG also appeared to be the most flexible, with the use of different international coding systems and measuring a wider variety of health outcomes.

Project description:ContextEarly detection of kidney cancer improves survival; however, low prevalence means that population-wide screening may be inefficient. Stratification of the population into risk categories could allow for the introduction of a screening programme tailored to individuals.ObjectiveThis review will identify and compare published models that predict the risk of developing kidney cancer in the general population.Evidence acquisitionA search identified primary research reporting or validating models predicting the risk of kidney cancer in Medline and EMBASE. After screening identified studies for inclusion, we extracted data onto a standardised form. The risk models were classified using the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) guidelines and evaluated using the PROBAST assessment tool.Evidence synthesisThe search identified 15 281 articles. Sixty-two satisfied the inclusion criteria; performance measures were provided for 11 models. Some models predicted the risk of prevalent undiagnosed disease and others future incident disease. Six of the models had been validated, two using external populations. The most commonly included risk factors were age, smoking status, and body mass index. Most of the models had acceptable-to-good discrimination (area under the receiver-operating curve >0.7) in development and validation. Many models also had high specificity; however, several had low sensitivity. The highest performance was seen for the models using only biomarkers to detect kidney cancer; however, these were developed and validated in small case-control studies.ConclusionsWe identified a small number of risk models that could be used to stratify the population according to the risk of kidney cancer. Most exhibit reasonable discrimination, but a few have been validated externally in population-based studies.Patient summaryIn this review, we looked at mathematical models predicting the likelihood of an individual developing kidney cancer. We found several suitable models, using a range of risk factors (such as age and smoking) to predict the risk for individuals. Most of the models identified require further testing in the general population to confirm their usefulness.

Project description:In the last 30 years, there has been an increasing incidence of oral cancer worldwide. Earlier detection of oral cancer has been shown to improve survival rates. However, given the relatively low prevalence of this disease, population-wide screening is likely to be inefficient. Risk prediction models could be used to target screening to those at highest risk or to select individuals for preventative interventions. This review (a) systematically identified published models that predict the development of oral cancer and are suitable for use in the general population and (b) described and compared the identified models, focusing on their development, including risk factors, performance and applicability to risk-stratified screening. A search was carried out in November 2022 in the Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library databases to identify primary research papers that report the development or validation of models predicting the risk of developing oral cancer (cancers of the oral cavity or oropharynx). The PROBAST tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias in the identified studies and the applicability of the models they describe. The search identified 11,222 articles, of which 14 studies (describing 23 models), satisfied the eligibility criteria of this review. The most commonly included risk factors were age (n = 20), alcohol consumption (n = 18) and smoking (n = 17). Six of the included models incorporated genetic information and three used biomarkers as predictors. Including information on human papillomavirus status was shown to improve model performance; however, this was only included in a small number of models. Most of the identified models (n = 13) showed good or excellent discrimination (AUROC > 0.7). Only fourteen models had been validated and only two of these validations were carried out in populations distinct from the model development population (external validation). Conclusions: Several risk prediction models have been identified that could be used to identify individuals at the highest risk of oral cancer within the context of screening programmes. However, external validation of these models in the target population is required, and, subsequently, an assessment of the feasibility of implementation with a risk-stratified screening programme for oral cancer.

Project description:PurposeIn recent decades, diverse nomograms have been proposed to predict extraprostatic extension (EPE) in prostate cancer (PCa). We aimed to systematically evaluate the accuracy of MRI-inclusive nomograms and traditional clinical nomograms in predicting EPE in PCa. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to provide baseline summative and comparative estimates for future study designs.Materials and methodsThe PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched up to May 17, 2023, to identify studies on prediction nomograms for EPE of PCa. The risk of bias in studies was assessed by using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity were obtained with bivariate random-effects model. Heterogeneity was investigated through meta-regression and subgroup analysis.ResultsForty-eight studies with a total of 57 contingency tables and 20,395 patients were included. No significant publication bias was observed for either the MRI-inclusive nomograms or clinical nomograms. For MRI-inclusive nomograms predicting EPE, the pooled AUC of validation cohorts was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.76, 0.83). For traditional clinical nomograms predicting EPE, the pooled AUCs of the Partin table and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) nomogram were 0.72 (95% CI: 0.68, 0.76) and 0.79 (95% CI: 0.75, 0.82), respectively.ConclusionPreoperative risk stratification is essential for PCa patients; both MRI-inclusive nomograms and traditional clinical nomograms had moderate diagnostic performance for predicting EPE in PCa. This study provides baseline comparative values for EPE prediction for future studies which is useful for evaluating preoperative risk stratification in PCa patients.Critical relevance statementThis meta-analysis firstly evaluated the diagnostic performance of preoperative MRI-inclusive nomograms and clinical nomograms for predicting extraprostatic extension (EPE) in prostate cancer (PCa) (moderate AUCs: 0.72-0.80). We provide baseline estimates for EPE prediction, these findings will be useful in assessing preoperative risk stratification of PCa patients.Key points• MRI-inclusive nomograms and traditional clinical nomograms had moderate AUCs (0.72-0.80) for predicting EPE. • MRI combined clinical nomogram may improve diagnostic accuracy of MRI alone for EPE prediction. • MSKCC nomogram had a higher specificity than Partin table for predicting EPE. • This meta-analysis provided baseline and comparative estimates of nomograms for EPE prediction for future studies.

Dataset Information

Prediction models for prostate cancer to be used in the primary care setting: a systematic review.

Publications

Prediction models for prostate cancer to be used in the primary care setting: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets