Margaret Sullivan Pepe1, Jing Fan, Christopher W Seymour. 1. Biostatics and Biomathematics Program, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, 1100 Fairview Avenue North, M2-B500, Seattle, WA 98109, USA. nnoble@fhcrc.org
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Studies evaluating a new diagnostic imaging test may select control subjects without disease who are similar to case subjects with disease in regard to factors potentially related to the imaging result. Selecting one or more controls that are matched to each case on factors such as age, comorbidities, or study site improves study validity by eliminating potential biases due to differential characteristics of readings for cases versus controls. However, it is not widely appreciated that valid analysis requires that the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve be adjusted for covariates. We propose a new computationally simple method for estimating the covariate-adjusted ROC curve that is appropriate in matched case-control studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We provide theoretical arguments for the validity of the estimator and demonstrate its application to data. We compare the statistical properties of the estimator with those of a previously proposed estimator of the covariate-adjusted ROC curve. We demonstrate an application of the estimator to data derived from a study of emergency medical services encounters where the goal is to diagnose critical illness in nontrauma, non-cardiac arrest patients. A novel bootstrap method is proposed for calculating confidence intervals. RESULTS: The new estimator is computationally very simple, yet we show it yields values that approximate the existing, more complicated estimator in simulated data sets. We found that the new estimator has excellent statistical properties, with bias and efficiency comparable with the existing method. CONCLUSIONS: In matched case-control studies, the ROC curve should be adjusted for matching covariates and can be estimated with the new computationally simple approach.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Studies evaluating a new diagnostic imaging test may select control subjects without disease who are similar to case subjects with disease in regard to factors potentially related to the imaging result. Selecting one or more controls that are matched to each case on factors such as age, comorbidities, or study site improves study validity by eliminating potential biases due to differential characteristics of readings for cases versus controls. However, it is not widely appreciated that valid analysis requires that the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve be adjusted for covariates. We propose a new computationally simple method for estimating the covariate-adjusted ROC curve that is appropriate in matched case-control studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We provide theoretical arguments for the validity of the estimator and demonstrate its application to data. We compare the statistical properties of the estimator with those of a previously proposed estimator of the covariate-adjusted ROC curve. We demonstrate an application of the estimator to data derived from a study of emergency medical services encounters where the goal is to diagnose critical illness in nontrauma, non-cardiac arrestpatients. A novel bootstrap method is proposed for calculating confidence intervals. RESULTS: The new estimator is computationally very simple, yet we show it yields values that approximate the existing, more complicated estimator in simulated data sets. We found that the new estimator has excellent statistical properties, with bias and efficiency comparable with the existing method. CONCLUSIONS: In matched case-control studies, the ROC curve should be adjusted for matching covariates and can be estimated with the new computationally simple approach.
Authors: Chirag R Parikh; Prasad Devarajan; Michael Zappitelli; Kyaw Sint; Heather Thiessen-Philbrook; Simon Li; Richard W Kim; Jay L Koyner; Steven G Coca; Charles L Edelstein; Michael G Shlipak; Amit X Garg; Catherine D Krawczeski Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2011-08-11 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: William E Barlow; Chen Chi; Patricia A Carney; Stephen H Taplin; Carl D'Orsi; Gary Cutter; R Edward Hendrick; Joann G Elmore Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2004-12-15 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: David Gur; Andriy I Bandos; Howard E Rockette; Margarita L Zuley; Christiane M Hakim; Denise M Chough; Marie A Ganott; Jules H Sumkin Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2010-03-16 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Christopher W Seymour; Jeremy M Kahn; Colin R Cooke; Timothy R Watkins; Susan R Heckbert; Thomas D Rea Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-08-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: P M Bossuyt; J B Reitsma; D E Bruns; C A Gatsonis; P P Glasziou; L M Irwig; J G Lijmer; D Moher; D Rennie; H C W de Vet Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: Margaret S Pepe; Ziding Feng; Holly Janes; Patrick M Bossuyt; John D Potter Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2008-10-07 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Jessica L Petrick; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Linda M Liao; Christian C Abnet; Xiaolin Wu; Marilie D Gammon; Thomas L Vaughan; Michael B Cook Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2021-01-06 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Luke McGeoch; Catherine L Saunders; Simon J Griffin; Jon D Emery; Fiona M Walter; Deborah J Thompson; Antonis C Antoniou; Juliet A Usher-Smith Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2019-07-10 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Hui Xu; Jing Qian; Nina P Paynter; Xuehong Zhang; Brian W Whitcomb; Shelley S Tworoger; Kathryn M Rexrode; Susan E Hankinson; Raji Balasubramanian Journal: Stat Med Date: 2018-11-22 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: Erin E E Fowler; Cassandra Hathaway; Fabryann Tillman; Robert Weinfurtner; Thomas A Sellers; John Heine Journal: Biomed Phys Eng Express Date: 2019-05-22
Authors: Eric J Duell; Leila Lujan-Barroso; Núria Sala; Samantha Deitz McElyea; Kim Overvad; Anne Tjonneland; Anja Olsen; Elisabete Weiderpass; Lill-Tove Busund; Line Moi; David Muller; Paolo Vineis; Dagfinn Aune; Giuseppe Matullo; Alessio Naccarati; Salvatore Panico; Giovanna Tagliabue; Rosario Tumino; Domenico Palli; Rudolf Kaaks; Verena A Katzke; Heiner Boeing; H B As Bueno-de-Mesquita; Petra H Peeters; Antonia Trichopoulou; Pagona Lagiou; Anastasia Kotanidou; Ruth C Travis; Nick Wareham; Kay-Tee Khaw; Jose Ramon Quiros; Miguel Rodríguez-Barranco; Miren Dorronsoro; María-Dolores Chirlaque; Eva Ardanaz; Gianluca Severi; Marie-Christine Boutron-Ruault; Vinciane Rebours; Paul Brennan; Marc Gunter; Ghislaine Scelo; Greg Cote; Stuart Sherman; Murray Korc Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2017-06-12 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Kazufumi Honda; Verena A Katzke; Anika Hüsing; Shinobu Okaya; Hirokazu Shoji; Kaoru Onidani; Anja Olsen; Anne Tjønneland; Kim Overvad; Elisabete Weiderpass; Paolo Vineis; David Muller; Kostas Tsilidis; Domenico Palli; Valeria Pala; Rosario Tumino; Alessio Naccarati; Salvatore Panico; Krasimira Aleksandrova; Heiner Boeing; H Bas Bueno-de-Mesquita; Petra H Peeters; Antonia Trichopoulou; Pagona Lagiou; Kay-Tee Khaw; Nick Wareham; Ruth C Travis; Susana Merino; Eric J Duell; Miguel Rodríguez-Barranco; María Dolores Chirlaque; Aurelio Barricarte; Vinciane Rebours; Marie-Chiristine Boutron-Ruault; Francesca Romana Mancini; Paul Brennan; Ghislaine Scelo; Jonas Manjer; Malin Sund; Daniel Öhlund; Federico Canzian; Rudolf Kaaks Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2018-12-04 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Zobeida Cruz-Monserrate; Kristyn Gumpper; Valentina Pita; Phil A Hart; Christopher Forsmark; David C Whitcomb; Dhiraj Yadav; Richard T Waldron; Stephen Pandol; Hanno Steen; Vincent Anani; Natasha Kanwar; Santhi Swaroop Vege; Savi Appana; Liang Li; Jose Serrano; Jo Ann S Rinaudo; Mark Topazian; Darwin L Conwell Journal: Pancreatology Date: 2021-01-22 Impact factor: 3.996