Ruben Carmona1, Kaveh Zakeri1, Garrett Green1, Lindsay Hwang1, Sachin Gulaya1, Beibei Xu1, Rohan Verma1, Casey W Williamson1, Daniel P Triplett1, Brent S Rose1, Hanjie Shen1, Florin Vaida1, James D Murphy1, Loren K Mell2. 1. Ruben Carmona, Kaveh Zakeri, Garrett Green, Sachin Gulaya, Beibei Xu, Rohan Verma, Casey W. Williamson, Daniel P. Triplett, Hanjie Shen, James D. Murphy, and Loren K. Mell, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla; Florin Vaida, University of California San Diego Medical Center, San Diego, CA; Lindsay Hwang, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; and Brent S. Rose, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA. 2. Ruben Carmona, Kaveh Zakeri, Garrett Green, Sachin Gulaya, Beibei Xu, Rohan Verma, Casey W. Williamson, Daniel P. Triplett, Hanjie Shen, James D. Murphy, and Loren K. Mell, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla; Florin Vaida, University of California San Diego Medical Center, San Diego, CA; Lindsay Hwang, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; and Brent S. Rose, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA. lmell@ucsd.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare a novel generalized competing event (GCE) model versus the standard Cox proportional hazards regression model for stratifying elderly patients with cancer who are at risk for competing events. METHODS: We identified 84,319 patients with nonmetastatic prostate, head and neck, and breast cancers from the SEER-Medicare database. Using demographic, tumor, and clinical characteristics, we trained risk scores on the basis of GCE versus Cox models for cancer-specific mortality and all-cause mortality. In test sets, we examined the predictive ability of the risk scores on the different causes of death, including second cancer mortality, noncancer mortality, and cause-specific mortality, using Fine-Gray regression and area under the curve. We compared how well models stratified subpopulations according to the ratio of the cumulative cause-specific hazard for cancer mortality to the cumulative hazard for overall mortality (ω) using the Akaike Information Criterion. RESULTS: In each sample, increasing GCE risk scores were associated with increased cancer-specific mortality and decreased competing mortality, whereas risk scores from Cox models were associated with both increased cancer-specific mortality and competing mortality. GCE models created greater separation in the area under the curve for cancer-specific mortality versus noncancer mortality (P < .001), indicating better discriminatory ability between these events. Comparing the GCE model to Cox models of cause-specific mortality or all-cause mortality, the respective Akaike Information Criterion scores were superior (lower) in each sample: prostate cancer, 28.6 versus 35.5 versus 39.4; head and neck cancer, 21.1 versus 29.4 versus 40.2; and breast cancer, 24.6 versus 32.3 versus 50.8. CONCLUSION: Compared with standard modeling approaches, GCE models improve stratification of elderly patients with cancer according to their risk of dying from cancer relative to overall mortality.
PURPOSE: To compare a novel generalized competing event (GCE) model versus the standard Cox proportional hazards regression model for stratifying elderly patients with cancer who are at risk for competing events. METHODS: We identified 84,319 patients with nonmetastatic prostate, head and neck, and breast cancers from the SEER-Medicare database. Using demographic, tumor, and clinical characteristics, we trained risk scores on the basis of GCE versus Cox models for cancer-specific mortality and all-cause mortality. In test sets, we examined the predictive ability of the risk scores on the different causes of death, including second cancer mortality, noncancer mortality, and cause-specific mortality, using Fine-Gray regression and area under the curve. We compared how well models stratified subpopulations according to the ratio of the cumulative cause-specific hazard for cancer mortality to the cumulative hazard for overall mortality (ω) using the Akaike Information Criterion. RESULTS: In each sample, increasing GCE risk scores were associated with increased cancer-specific mortality and decreased competing mortality, whereas risk scores from Cox models were associated with both increased cancer-specific mortality and competing mortality. GCE models created greater separation in the area under the curve for cancer-specific mortality versus noncancer mortality (P < .001), indicating better discriminatory ability between these events. Comparing the GCE model to Cox models of cause-specific mortality or all-cause mortality, the respective Akaike Information Criterion scores were superior (lower) in each sample: prostate cancer, 28.6 versus 35.5 versus 39.4; head and neck cancer, 21.1 versus 29.4 versus 40.2; and breast cancer, 24.6 versus 32.3 versus 50.8. CONCLUSION: Compared with standard modeling approaches, GCE models improve stratification of elderly patients with cancer according to their risk of dying from cancer relative to overall mortality.
Authors: Emilie Lalonde; Adrian S Ishkanian; Jenna Sykes; Michael Fraser; Helen Ross-Adams; Nicholas Erho; Mark J Dunning; Silvia Halim; Alastair D Lamb; Nathalie C Moon; Gaetano Zafarana; Anne Y Warren; Xianyue Meng; John Thoms; Michal R Grzadkowski; Alejandro Berlin; Cherry L Have; Varune R Ramnarine; Cindy Q Yao; Chad A Malloff; Lucia L Lam; Honglei Xie; Nicholas J Harding; Denise Y F Mak; Kenneth C Chu; Lauren C Chong; Dorota H Sendorek; Christine P'ng; Colin C Collins; Jeremy A Squire; Igor Jurisica; Colin Cooper; Rosalind Eeles; Melania Pintilie; Alan Dal Pra; Elai Davicioni; Wan L Lam; Michael Milosevic; David E Neal; Theodorus van der Kwast; Paul C Boutros; Robert G Bristow Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2014-11-13 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Timothy J Daskivich; Kang-Hsien Fan; Tatsuki Koyama; Peter C Albertsen; Michael Goodman; Ann S Hamilton; Richard M Hoffman; Janet L Stanford; Antoinette M Stroup; Mark S Litwin; David F Penson Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2013-05-21 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Ruben Carmona; Sachin Gulaya; James D Murphy; Brent S Rose; John Wu; Sonal Noticewala; Michael T McHale; Catheryn M Yashar; Florin Vaida; Loren K Mell Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-07-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Loren K Mell; Hanjie Shen; Phuc Felix Nguyen-Tân; David I Rosenthal; Kaveh Zakeri; Lucas K Vitzthum; Steven J Frank; Peter B Schiff; Andy M Trotti; James A Bonner; Christopher U Jones; Sue S Yom; Wade L Thorstad; Stuart J Wong; George Shenouda; John A Ridge; Qiang E Zhang; Quynh-Thu Le Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2019-08-16 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Paul Riviere; Christopher Tokeshi; Jiayi Hou; Vinit Nalawade; Reith Sarkar; Anthony J Paravati; Melody Schiaffino; Brent Rose; Ronghui Xu; James D Murphy Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2019-03
Authors: Takashi Eguchi; Sarina Bains; Ming-Ching Lee; Kay See Tan; Boris Hristov; Daniel H Buitrago; Manjit S Bains; Robert J Downey; James Huang; James M Isbell; Bernard J Park; Valerie W Rusch; David R Jones; Prasad S Adusumilli Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-10-31 Impact factor: 44.544