Dataset Information

External validation of life expectancy prognostic models in patients evaluated for palliative radiotherapy at the end-of-life.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The TEACHH and Chow models were developed to predict life expectancy (LE) in patients evaluated for palliative radiotherapy (PRT). We sought to validate the TEACHH and Chow models in patients who died within 90 days of PRT consultation. METHODS:A retrospective review was conducted on patients evaluated for PRT from 2017 to 2019 who died within 90 days of consultation. Data were collected for the TEACHH and Chow models; one point was assigned for each adverse factor. TEACHH model included: primary site of disease, ECOG performance status, age, prior palliative chemotherapy courses, hospitalization within the last 3 months, and presence of hepatic metastases; patients with 0-1, 2-4, and 5-6 adverse factors were categorized into groups (A, B, and C). The Chow model included non-breast primary, site of metastases other than bone only, and KPS; patients with 0-1, 2, or 3 adverse factors were categorized into groups (I, II, and III). RESULTS:A total of 505 patients with a median overall survival of 2.1 months (IQR: 0.7-2.6) were identified. Based on the TEACHH model, 10 (2.0%), 387 (76.6%), and 108 (21.4%) patients were predicted to live >1 year, >3 months to ?1 year, and ?3 months, respectively. Utilizing the Chow model, 108 (21.4%), 250 (49.5%), and 147 (29.1%) patients were expected to live 15.0, 6.5, and 2.3 months, respectively. CONCLUSION:Neither the TEACHH nor Chow model correctly predict prognosis in a patient population with a survival <3 months. A better predictive tool is required to identify patients with short LE.

SUBMITTER: Mojica-Marquez AE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7433812 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

External validation of life expectancy prognostic models in patients evaluated for palliative radiotherapy at the end-of-life.

Mojica-Márquez Adrianna E AE Rodríguez-López Joshua L JL Patel Ankur K AK Ling Diane C DC Rajagopalan Malolan S MS Beriwal Sushil S

Cancer medicine 20200626 16

<h4>Background</h4>The TEACHH and Chow models were developed to predict life expectancy (LE) in patients evaluated for palliative radiotherapy (PRT). We sought to validate the TEACHH and Chow models in patients who died within 90 days of PRT consultation.<h4>Methods</h4>A retrospective review was conducted on patients evaluated for PRT from 2017 to 2019 who died within 90 days of consultation. Data were collected for the TEACHH and Chow models; one point was assigned for each adverse factor. TEA ...[more]

PMID: 32592315

Similar Datasets

Project description:Purpose: Radiation-induced lung disease (RILD), defined as dyspnea in this study, is a risk for patients receiving high-dose thoracic irradiation. This study is a TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of A Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis) Type 4 validation of previously-published dyspnea models via secondary analysis of esophageal cancer SCOPE1 trial data. We quantify the predictive performance of these two models for predicting the maximal dyspnea grade ≥ 2 within 6 months after the end of high-dose chemo-radiotherapy for primary esophageal cancer. Materials and methods: We tested the performance of two previously published dyspnea risk models using baseline, treatment and follow-up data on 258 esophageal cancer patients in the UK enrolled into the SCOPE1 multi-center trial. The tested models were developed from lung cancer patients treated at MAASTRO Clinic (The Netherlands) from the period 2002 to 2011. The adverse event of interest was dyspnea ≥ Grade 2 (CTCAE v3) within 6 months after the end of radiotherapy. As some variables were missing randomly and cannot be imputed, 212 patients in the SCOPE1 were used for validation of model 1 and 255 patients were used for validation of model 2. The model parameter Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 s (FEV1), as a predictor to both validated models, was imputed using the WHO performance status. External validation was performed using an automated, decentralized approach, without exchange of individual patient data. Results: Out of 258 patients with esophageal cancer in SCOPE1 trial data, 38 patients (14.7%) developed radiation-induced dyspnea (≥ Grade 2) within 6 months after chemo-radiotherapy. The discrimination performance of the models in esophageal cancer patients treated with high-dose external beam radiotherapy was moderate, area under curve (AUC) of 0.68 (95% CI 0.55-0.76) and 0.70 (95% CI 0.58-0.77), respectively. The curves and AUCs derived by distributed learning were identical to the results from validation on a local host. Conclusion: We have externally validated previously published dyspnea models using an esophageal cancer dataset. FEV1 that is not routinely measured for esophageal cancer was imputed using WHO performance status. Prediction performance was not statistically different from previous training and validation sets. Risk estimates were dominated by WHO score in Model 1 and baseline dyspnea in Model 2. The distributed learning approach gave the same answer as local processing, and could be performed without accessing a validation site's individual patients-level data.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Pre-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. METHODS:IPD 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. RESULTS:Of 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%. CONCLUSIONS:The 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 REGISTRATION:PROSPERO ID: CRD42015029349 .

Project description:External validations and comparisons of prognostic models or scores are a prerequisite for their use in routine clinical care but are lacking in most medical fields including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Our aim was to externally validate and concurrently compare prognostic scores for 3-year all-cause mortality in mostly multimorbid patients with COPD.We relied on 24 cohort studies of the COPD Cohorts Collaborative International Assessment consortium, corresponding to primary, secondary, and tertiary care in Europe, the Americas, and Japan. These studies include globally 15,762 patients with COPD (1871 deaths and 42,203 person years of follow-up). We used network meta-analysis adapted to multiple score comparison (MSC), following a frequentist two-stage approach; thus, we were able to compare all scores in a single analytical framework accounting for correlations among scores within cohorts. We assessed transitivity, heterogeneity, and inconsistency and provided a performance ranking of the prognostic scores.Depending on data availability, between two and nine prognostic scores could be calculated for each cohort. The BODE score (body mass index, airflow obstruction, dyspnea, and exercise capacity) had a median area under the curve (AUC) of 0.679 [1st quartile-3rd quartile = 0.655-0.733] across cohorts. The ADO score (age, dyspnea, and airflow obstruction) showed the best performance for predicting mortality (difference AUCADO - AUCBODE = 0.015 [95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.002 to 0.032]; p = 0.08) followed by the updated BODE (AUCBODE updated - AUCBODE = 0.008 [95% CI = -0.005 to +0.022]; p = 0.23). The assumption of transitivity was not violated. Heterogeneity across direct comparisons was small, and we did not identify any local or global inconsistency.Our analyses showed best discriminatory performance for the ADO and updated BODE scores in patients with COPD. A limitation to be addressed in future studies is the extension of MSC network meta-analysis to measures of calibration. MSC network meta-analysis can be applied to prognostic scores in any medical field to identify the best scores, possibly paving the way for stratified medicine, public health, and research.

Project description:ObjectivesExisting UK prognostic models for patients admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 are limited by reliance on comorbidities, which are under-recorded in secondary care, and lack of imaging data among the candidate predictors. Our aims were to develop and externally validate novel prognostic models for adverse outcomes (death and intensive therapy unit (ITU) admission) in UK secondary care and externally validate the existing 4C score.DesignCandidate predictors included demographic variables, symptoms, physiological measures, imaging and laboratory tests. Final models used logistic regression with stepwise selection.SettingModel development was performed in data from University Hospitals Birmingham (UHB). External validation was performed in the CovidCollab dataset.ParticipantsPatients with COVID-19 admitted to UHB January-August 2020 were included.Main outcome measuresDeath and ITU admission within 28 days of admission.Results1040 patients with COVID-19 were included in the derivation cohort; 288 (28%) died and 183 (18%) were admitted to ITU within 28 days of admission. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for mortality was 0.791 (95% CI 0.761 to 0.822) in UHB and 0.767 (95% CI 0.754 to 0.780) in CovidCollab; AUROC for ITU admission was 0.906 (95% CI 0.883 to 0.929) in UHB and 0.811 (95% CI 0.795 to 0.828) in CovidCollab. Models showed good calibration. Addition of comorbidities to candidate predictors did not improve model performance. AUROC for the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium 4C score in the UHB dataset was 0.753 (95% CI 0.720 to 0.785).ConclusionsThe novel prognostic models showed good discrimination and calibration in derivation and external validation datasets, and performed at least as well as the existing 4C score using only routinely collected patient information. The models can be integrated into electronic medical records systems to calculate each individual patient's probability of death or ITU admission at the time of hospital admission. Implementation of the models and clinical utility should be evaluated.

Dataset Information

External validation of life expectancy prognostic models in patients evaluated for palliative radiotherapy at the end-of-life.

Publications

External validation of life expectancy prognostic models in patients evaluated for palliative radiotherapy at the end-of-life.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure