Literature DB >> 22095849

Updating risk prediction tools: a case study in prostate cancer.

Donna P Ankerst1, Tim Koniarski, Yuanyuan Liang, Robin J Leach, Ziding Feng, Martin G Sanda, Alan W Partin, Daniel W Chan, Jacob Kagan, Lori Sokoll, John T Wei, Ian M Thompson.   

Abstract

Online risk prediction tools for common cancers are now easily accessible and widely used by patients and doctors for informed decision-making concerning screening and diagnosis. A practical problem is as cancer research moves forward and new biomarkers and risk factors are discovered, there is a need to update the risk algorithms to include them. Typically, the new markers and risk factors cannot be retrospectively measured on the same study participants used to develop the original prediction tool, necessitating the merging of a separate study of different participants, which may be much smaller in sample size and of a different design. Validation of the updated tool on a third independent data set is warranted before the updated tool can go online. This article reports on the application of Bayes rule for updating risk prediction tools to include a set of biomarkers measured in an external study to the original study used to develop the risk prediction tool. The procedure is illustrated in the context of updating the online Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator to incorporate the new markers %freePSA and [-2]proPSA measured on an external case-control study performed in Texas, U.S.. Recent state-of-the art methods in validation of risk prediction tools and evaluation of the improvement of updated to original tools are implemented using an external validation set provided by the U.S. Early Detection Research Network.
Copyright © 2012 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22095849      PMCID: PMC3715690          DOI: 10.1002/bimj.201100062

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biom J        ISSN: 0323-3847            Impact factor:   2.207


  27 in total

Review 1.  Phases of biomarker development for early detection of cancer.

Authors:  M S Pepe; R Etzioni; Z Feng; J D Potter; M L Thompson; M Thornquist; M Winget; Y Yasui
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2001-07-18       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Assessing prostate cancer risk: results from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial.

Authors:  Ian M Thompson; Donna Pauler Ankerst; Chen Chi; Phyllis J Goodman; Catherine M Tangen; M Scott Lucia; Ziding Feng; Howard L Parnes; Charles A Coltman
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2006-04-19       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Estimating the diagnostic likelihood ratio of a continuous marker.

Authors:  Wen Gu; Margaret Sullivan Pepe
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2010-07-16       Impact factor: 5.899

4.  Operating characteristics of prostate-specific antigen in men with an initial PSA level of 3.0 ng/ml or lower.

Authors:  Ian M Thompson; Donna Pauler Ankerst; Chen Chi; M Scott Lucia; Phyllis J Goodman; John J Crowley; Howard L Parnes; Charles A Coltman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2005-07-06       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach.

Authors:  E R DeLong; D M DeLong; D L Clarke-Pearson
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1988-09       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  A review of goodness of fit statistics for use in the development of logistic regression models.

Authors:  S Lemeshow; D W Hosmer
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1982-01       Impact factor: 4.897

7.  A new logistic regression approach for the evaluation of diagnostic test results.

Authors:  A Cecile J W Janssens; Yazhong Deng; Gerard J J M Borsboom; Marinus J C Eijkemans; J Dik F Habbema; Ewout W Steyerberg
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2005 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.583

8.  Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually.

Authors:  M H Gail; L A Brinton; D P Byar; D K Corle; S B Green; C Schairer; J J Mulvihill
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1989-12-20       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 9.  Implications of recent clinical trials for the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines.

Authors:  Scott M Grundy; James I Cleeman; C Noel Bairey Merz; H Bryan Brewer; Luther T Clark; Donald B Hunninghake; Richard C Pasternak; Sidney C Smith; Neil J Stone
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2004-07-13       Impact factor: 29.690

10.  Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level < or =4.0 ng per milliliter.

Authors:  Ian M Thompson; Donna K Pauler; Phyllis J Goodman; Catherine M Tangen; M Scott Lucia; Howard L Parnes; Lori M Minasian; Leslie G Ford; Scott M Lippman; E David Crawford; John J Crowley; Charles A Coltman
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-05-27       Impact factor: 91.245

View more
  16 in total

1.  Prostate cancer risk prediction in a urology clinic in Mexico.

Authors:  Yuanyuan Liang; Jamie C Messer; Christopher Louden; Miguel A Jimenez-Rios; Ian M Thompson; Hector R Camarena-Reynoso
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2012-02-03       Impact factor: 3.498

2.  Incorporation of Urinary Prostate Cancer Antigen 3 and TMPRSS2:ERG into Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator.

Authors:  Donna P Ankerst; Martin Goros; Scott A Tomlins; Dattatraya Patil; Ziding Feng; John T Wei; Martin G Sanda; Jonathan Gelfond; Ian M Thompson; Robin J Leach; Michael A Liss
Journal:  Eur Urol Focus       Date:  2018-02-13

3.  Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial risk calculator 2.0 for the prediction of low- vs high-grade prostate cancer.

Authors:  Donna P Ankerst; Josef Hoefler; Sebastian Bock; Phyllis J Goodman; Andrew Vickers; Javier Hernandez; Lori J Sokoll; Martin G Sanda; John T Wei; Robin J Leach; Ian M Thompson
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 2.649

4.  Fracture risk assessment: state of the art, methodologically unsound, or poorly reported?

Authors:  Gary S Collins; Karl Michaëlsson
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 5.096

5.  The risk of biopsy-detectable prostate cancer using the prostate cancer prevention Trial Risk Calculator in a community setting.

Authors:  Yuanyuan Liang; Donna P Ankerst; Ziding Feng; Rong Fu; Janet L Stanford; Ian M Thompson
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2012-05-01       Impact factor: 3.498

6.  Improving patient prostate cancer risk assessment: Moving from static, globally-applied to dynamic, practice-specific risk calculators.

Authors:  Andreas N Strobl; Andrew J Vickers; Ben Van Calster; Ewout Steyerberg; Robin J Leach; Ian M Thompson; Donna P Ankerst
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2015-05-16       Impact factor: 6.317

Review 7.  Risk stratification in prostate cancer screening.

Authors:  Monique J Roobol; Sigrid V Carlsson
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2012-12-18       Impact factor: 14.432

8.  Comparison of approaches for incorporating new information into existing risk prediction models.

Authors:  Sonja Grill; Donna P Ankerst; Mitchell H Gail; Nilanjan Chatterjee; Ruth M Pfeiffer
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2016-12-11       Impact factor: 2.373

9.  Incorporation of detailed family history from the Swedish Family Cancer Database into the PCPT risk calculator.

Authors:  Sonja Grill; Mahdi Fallah; Robin J Leach; Ian M Thompson; Stephen Freedland; Kari Hemminki; Donna P Ankerst
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2014-09-19       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 10.  The role of biomarkers in the assessment of prostate cancer risk prior to prostate biopsy: which markers matter and how should they be used?

Authors:  Marianne Schmid; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Markus Graefen; Margit Fisch; Felix K Chun; Jens Hansen
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-05-14       Impact factor: 4.226

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.