Gene K Ma1, Uri Ladabaum2. 1. Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. 2. Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California; Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. Electronic address: uri.ladabaum@stanford.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: A valid risk prediction model for colorectal neoplasia would allow patients to be screened for colorectal cancer (CRC) on the basis of risk. We performed a systematic review of studies reporting risk prediction models for colorectal neoplasia. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases from January 1990 through March 2013 and of references in identified studies. Case-control, cohort, and cross-sectional studies that developed or attempted to validate a model to predict risk of colorectal neoplasia were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed model quality. Model quality was considered to be good for studies that included external validation, fair for studies that included internal validation, and poor for studies with neither. RESULTS: Nine studies developed a new prediction model, and 2 tested existing models. The models varied with regard to population, predictors, risk tiers, outcomes (CRC or advanced neoplasia), and range of predicted risk. Several included age, sex, smoking, a measure of obesity, and/or family history of CRC among the predictors. Quality was good for 6 models, fair for 2 models, and poor for 1 model. The tier with the largest population fraction (low, intermediate, or high risk) depended on the model. For most models that defined risk tiers, the risk difference between the highest and lowest tier ranged from 2-fold to 4-fold. Two models reached the 0.70 threshold for the C statistic, typically considered to indicate good discriminatory power. CONCLUSIONS: Most current colorectal neoplasia risk prediction models have relatively weak discriminatory power and have not demonstrated generalizability. It remains to be determined how risk prediction models could inform CRC screening strategies.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: A valid risk prediction model for colorectal neoplasia would allow patients to be screened for colorectal cancer (CRC) on the basis of risk. We performed a systematic review of studies reporting risk prediction models for colorectal neoplasia. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases from January 1990 through March 2013 and of references in identified studies. Case-control, cohort, and cross-sectional studies that developed or attempted to validate a model to predict risk of colorectal neoplasia were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed model quality. Model quality was considered to be good for studies that included external validation, fair for studies that included internal validation, and poor for studies with neither. RESULTS: Nine studies developed a new prediction model, and 2 tested existing models. The models varied with regard to population, predictors, risk tiers, outcomes (CRC or advanced neoplasia), and range of predicted risk. Several included age, sex, smoking, a measure of obesity, and/or family history of CRC among the predictors. Quality was good for 6 models, fair for 2 models, and poor for 1 model. The tier with the largest population fraction (low, intermediate, or high risk) depended on the model. For most models that defined risk tiers, the risk difference between the highest and lowest tier ranged from 2-fold to 4-fold. Two models reached the 0.70 threshold for the C statistic, typically considered to indicate good discriminatory power. CONCLUSIONS: Most current colorectal neoplasia risk prediction models have relatively weak discriminatory power and have not demonstrated generalizability. It remains to be determined how risk prediction models could inform CRC screening strategies.
Authors: Paul C Schroy; Emir Duhovic; Clara A Chen; Timothy C Heeren; William Lopez; Danielle L Apodaca; John B Wong Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Douglas K Rex; C Richard Boland; Jason A Dominitz; Francis M Giardiello; David A Johnson; Tonya Kaltenbach; Theodore R Levin; David Lieberman; Douglas J Robertson Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2017-06-06 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Paul C Schroy; John B Wong; Michael J O'Brien; Clara A Chen; John L Griffith Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2015-05-26 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Markus D Knudsen; Thomas de Lange; Edoardo Botteri; Dung-Hong Nguyen; Helge Evensen; Chloé B Steen; Geir Hoff; Tomm Bernklev; Anette Hjartåker; Paula Berstad Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-07-21 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Paul F Pinsky; Kelly Yu; Barnett S Kramer; Amanda Black; Saundra S Buys; Edward Partridge; John Gohagan; Christine D Berg; Philip C Prorok Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2016-09-09 Impact factor: 5.482