BACKGROUND: A prediction model for pathologic N2 (pN2) among lung cancer patients with a negative mediastinum by positron emission tomography (PET) was recently internally validated. Our study sought to determine the external validity of that model. METHODS: A cohort study [2005-2013] was performed of lung cancer patients with a negative mediastinum by PET. Previously published model coefficients were used to estimate the probability of pN2 based on tumor location and size, nodal enlargement by computed tomography (CT), maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of the primary tumor, N1 disease by PET, and pretreatment histology. RESULTS: Among 239 patients, 18 had pN2 [7.5%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 4.5-12%]. Model discrimination was excellent (c-statistic 0.80, 95% CI: 0.75-0.85) and the model fit the data well (P=0.191). The accuracy of the model was as follows: sensitivity 100%, 95% CI: 81-100%; specificity 49%, 95% CI: 42-56%; positive predictive value (PPV) 14%, 95% CI: 8-21%, and negative predictive value (NPV) 100%, 95% CI: 97-100%. CI inspection revealed a significantly higher c-statistic in this external validation cohort compared to the internal validation cohort. The model's apparently poor specificity for patient selection is in fact significantly better than usual care (i.e., aggressive but allowable guideline concordant staging) and minimum guideline mandated selection criteria for invasive staging. CONCLUSIONS: A prediction model for pN2 is externally valid. The high NPV of this model may allow pulmonologists and thoracic surgeons to more comfortably minimize the number of invasive procedures performed among patients with a negative mediastinum by PET.
BACKGROUND: A prediction model for pathologic N2 (pN2) among lung cancerpatients with a negative mediastinum by positron emission tomography (PET) was recently internally validated. Our study sought to determine the external validity of that model. METHODS: A cohort study [2005-2013] was performed of lung cancerpatients with a negative mediastinum by PET. Previously published model coefficients were used to estimate the probability of pN2 based on tumor location and size, nodal enlargement by computed tomography (CT), maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of the primary tumor, N1 disease by PET, and pretreatment histology. RESULTS: Among 239 patients, 18 had pN2 [7.5%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 4.5-12%]. Model discrimination was excellent (c-statistic 0.80, 95% CI: 0.75-0.85) and the model fit the data well (P=0.191). The accuracy of the model was as follows: sensitivity 100%, 95% CI: 81-100%; specificity 49%, 95% CI: 42-56%; positive predictive value (PPV) 14%, 95% CI: 8-21%, and negative predictive value (NPV) 100%, 95% CI: 97-100%. CI inspection revealed a significantly higher c-statistic in this external validation cohort compared to the internal validation cohort. The model's apparently poor specificity for patient selection is in fact significantly better than usual care (i.e., aggressive but allowable guideline concordant staging) and minimum guideline mandated selection criteria for invasive staging. CONCLUSIONS: A prediction model for pN2 is externally valid. The high NPV of this model may allow pulmonologists and thoracic surgeons to more comfortably minimize the number of invasive procedures performed among patients with a negative mediastinum by PET.
Authors: Andrew D Trister; Daniel A Pryma; Eric Xanthopoulos; John Kucharczuk; Daniel Sterman; Ramesh Rengan Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: Gail E Darling; Mark S Allen; Paul A Decker; Karla Ballman; Richard A Malthaner; Richard I Inculet; David R Jones; Robert J McKenna; Rodney J Landreneau; Valerie W Rusch; Joe B Putnam Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Sebastian A Defranchi; Stephen D Cassivi; Francis C Nichols; Mark S Allen; K Robert Shen; Claude Deschamps; Dennis A Wigle Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Paul C Lee; Jeffrey L Port; Robert J Korst; Yaakov Liss; Danish N Meherally; Nasser K Altorki Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Francys C Verdial; David K Madtes; Billanna Hwang; Michael S Mulligan; Katherine Odem-Davis; Rachel Waworuntu; Douglas E Wood; Farhood Farjah Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2019-01-30 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Oisin J O'Connell; Francisco A Almeida; Michael J Simoff; Lonny Yarmus; Ray Lazarus; Benjamin Young; Yu Chen; Roy Semaan; Timothy M Saettele; Joseph Cicenia; Harmeet Bedi; Corrine Kliment; Liang Li; Sonali Sethi; Javier Diaz-Mendoza; David Feller-Kopman; Juhee Song; Thomas Gildea; Hans Lee; Horiana B Grosu; Michael Machuzak; Macarena Rodriguez-Vial; George A Eapen; Carlos A Jimenez; Roberto F Casal; David E Ost Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2017-06-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Lucas W Thornblade; Douglas E Wood; Michael S Mulligan; Alexander S Farivar; Michal Hubka; Kimberly E Costas; Bahirathan Krishnadasan; Farhood Farjah Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2018-02-09 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Farhood Farjah; David K Madtes; Douglas E Wood; David R Flum; Megan E Zadworny; Rachel Waworuntu; Billanna Hwang; Michael S Mulligan Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2015-08-06 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Amelia Maiga; Farhood Farjah; Jeffrey Blume; Stephen Deppen; Valerie F Welty; Richard S D'Agostino; Graham A Colditz; Benjamin D Kozower; Eric L Grogan Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2019-06-27 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Hari B Keshava; Kay See Tan; Joseph Dycoco; Jennifer Livschitz; Matthew J Bott; James Huang; Valerie W Rusch; James M Isbell; Daniela Molena; Manjit S Bains; David R Jones; Gaetano Rocco Journal: Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2020-08-25
Authors: Virginia Leiro; Loretta De Chiara; Mar Rodríguez-Girondo; Maribel Botana-Rial; Diana Valverde; Manuel Núñez-Delgado; Alberto Fernández-Villar Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2019-09-20 Impact factor: 6.639