Literature DB >> 27095854

Developing a clinical utility framework to evaluate prediction models in radiogenomics.

Yirong Wu1, Jie Liu2, Alejandro Munoz Del Rio3, David C Page2, Oguzhan Alagoz4, Peggy Peissig5, Adedayo A Onitilo6, Elizabeth S Burnside1.   

Abstract

Combining imaging and genetic information to predict disease presence and behavior is being codified into an emerging discipline called "radiogenomics." Optimal evaluation methodologies for radiogenomics techniques have not been established. We aim to develop a clinical decision framework based on utility analysis to assess prediction models for breast cancer. Our data comes from a retrospective case-control study, collecting Gail model risk factors, genetic variants (single nucleotide polymorphisms-SNPs), and mammographic features in Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) lexicon. We first constructed three logistic regression models built on different sets of predictive features: (1) Gail, (2) Gail+SNP, and (3) Gail+SNP+BI-RADS. Then, we generated ROC curves for three models. After we assigned utility values for each category of findings (true negative, false positive, false negative and true positive), we pursued optimal operating points on ROC curves to achieve maximum expected utility (MEU) of breast cancer diagnosis. We used McNemar's test to compare the predictive performance of the three models. We found that SNPs and BI-RADS features augmented the baseline Gail model in terms of the area under ROC curve (AUC) and MEU. SNPs improved sensitivity of the Gail model (0.276 vs. 0.147) and reduced specificity (0.855 vs. 0.912). When additional mammographic features were added, sensitivity increased to 0.457 and specificity to 0.872. SNPs and mammographic features played a significant role in breast cancer risk estimation (p-value < 0.001). Our decision framework comprising utility analysis and McNemar's test provides a novel framework to evaluate prediction models in the realm of radiogenomics.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ROC methodology; breast imaging; expected utility; genetics; mammography

Year:  2015        PMID: 27095854      PMCID: PMC4834184          DOI: 10.1117/12.2081954

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng        ISSN: 0277-786X


  38 in total

1.  A comparison of C/B ratios from studies using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.

Authors:  S B Cantor; C C Sun; G Tortolero-Luna; R Richards-Kortum; M Follen
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Reader variability in mammography and its implications for expected utility over the population of readers and cases.

Authors:  Robert F Wagner; Craig A Beam; Sergey V Beiden
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2004 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 3.  Net reclassification improvement: computation, interpretation, and controversies: a literature review and clinician's guide.

Authors:  Maarten J G Leening; Moniek M Vedder; Jacqueline C M Witteman; Michael J Pencina; Ewout W Steyerberg
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2014-01-21       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  Extensions of net reclassification improvement calculations to measure usefulness of new biomarkers.

Authors:  Michael J Pencina; Ralph B D'Agostino; Ewout W Steyerberg
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2010-11-05       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  The eMERGE Network: a consortium of biorepositories linked to electronic medical records data for conducting genomic studies.

Authors:  Catherine A McCarty; Rex L Chisholm; Christopher G Chute; Iftikhar J Kullo; Gail P Jarvik; Eric B Larson; Rongling Li; Daniel R Masys; Marylyn D Ritchie; Dan M Roden; Jeffery P Struewing; Wendy A Wolf
Journal:  BMC Med Genomics       Date:  2011-01-26       Impact factor: 3.063

6.  The breast imaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories.

Authors:  L Liberman; A F Abramson; F B Squires; J R Glassman; E A Morris; D D Dershaw
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  Pursuing optimal thresholds to recommend breast biopsy by quantifying the value of tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Yirong Wu; Oguzhan Alagoz; David J Vanness; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Elizabeth S Burnside
Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng       Date:  2014-03-11

Review 8.  A systematic review of breast cancer incidence risk prediction models with meta-analysis of their performance.

Authors:  Catherine Meads; Ikhlaaq Ahmed; Richard D Riley
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2011-10-22       Impact factor: 4.872

9.  Breast cancer risk assessment with five independent genetic variants and two risk factors in Chinese women.

Authors:  Juncheng Dai; Zhibin Hu; Yue Jiang; Hao Shen; Jing Dong; Hongxia Ma; Hongbing Shen
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2012-01-23       Impact factor: 6.466

10.  Genome-wide association study identifies novel breast cancer susceptibility loci.

Authors:  Douglas F Easton; Karen A Pooley; Alison M Dunning; Paul D P Pharoah; Deborah Thompson; Dennis G Ballinger; Jeffery P Struewing; Jonathan Morrison; Helen Field; Robert Luben; Nicholas Wareham; Shahana Ahmed; Catherine S Healey; Richard Bowman; Kerstin B Meyer; Christopher A Haiman; Laurence K Kolonel; Brian E Henderson; Loic Le Marchand; Paul Brennan; Suleeporn Sangrajrang; Valerie Gaborieau; Fabrice Odefrey; Chen-Yang Shen; Pei-Ei Wu; Hui-Chun Wang; Diana Eccles; D Gareth Evans; Julian Peto; Olivia Fletcher; Nichola Johnson; Sheila Seal; Michael R Stratton; Nazneen Rahman; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Stig E Bojesen; Børge G Nordestgaard; Christen K Axelsson; Montserrat Garcia-Closas; Louise Brinton; Stephen Chanock; Jolanta Lissowska; Beata Peplonska; Heli Nevanlinna; Rainer Fagerholm; Hannaleena Eerola; Daehee Kang; Keun-Young Yoo; Dong-Young Noh; Sei-Hyun Ahn; David J Hunter; Susan E Hankinson; David G Cox; Per Hall; Sara Wedren; Jianjun Liu; Yen-Ling Low; Natalia Bogdanova; Peter Schürmann; Thilo Dörk; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Catharina E Jacobi; Peter Devilee; Jan G M Klijn; Alice J Sigurdson; Michele M Doody; Bruce H Alexander; Jinghui Zhang; Angela Cox; Ian W Brock; Gordon MacPherson; Malcolm W R Reed; Fergus J Couch; Ellen L Goode; Janet E Olson; Hanne Meijers-Heijboer; Ans van den Ouweland; André Uitterlinden; Fernando Rivadeneira; Roger L Milne; Gloria Ribas; Anna Gonzalez-Neira; Javier Benitez; John L Hopper; Margaret McCredie; Melissa Southey; Graham G Giles; Chris Schroen; Christina Justenhoven; Hiltrud Brauch; Ute Hamann; Yon-Dschun Ko; Amanda B Spurdle; Jonathan Beesley; Xiaoqing Chen; Arto Mannermaa; Veli-Matti Kosma; Vesa Kataja; Jaana Hartikainen; Nicholas E Day; David R Cox; Bruce A J Ponder
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2007-06-28       Impact factor: 49.962

View more
  2 in total

1.  A Utility/Cost Analysis of Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Algorithms.

Authors:  Craig K Abbey; Yirong Wu; Elizabeth S Burnside; Adam Wunderlich; Frank W Samuelson; John M Boone
Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng       Date:  2016-03-24

2.  Discriminatory Accuracy of the Gail Model for Breast Cancer Risk Assessment among Iranian Women.

Authors:  Sahar Rostami; Ali Rafei; Maryam Damghanian; Zohreh Khakbazan; Farzad Maleki; Kazem Zendehdel
Journal:  Iran J Public Health       Date:  2020-11       Impact factor: 1.429

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.