Victoria Prince1, Emily L Bellile2, Yilun Sun2, Gregory T Wolf1, Connor W Hoban1, Andrew G Shuman1, Jeremy M G Taylor3. 1. Department of Otolaryngology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, United States. 2. Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, United States. 3. Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, United States. Electronic address: jmgt@umich.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Optimal management of oral cancer relies upon accurate and individualized risk prediction of relevant clinical outcomes. Individualized prognostic calculators have been developed to guide patient-physician communication and treatment-related decision-making. However it is critical to scrutinize their accuracy prior to integrating into clinical care. AIM: To compare and evaluate oral cavity cancer prognostic calculators using an independent dataset. METHODS: Five prognostic calculators incorporating patient and tumor characteristics were identified that evaluated five-year overall survival. A total of 505 patients with previously untreated oral cancer diagnosed between 2003 and 2014 were analyzed. Calculators were applied to each patient to generate individual predicted survival probabilities. Predictions were compared among prognostic tools and with observed outcomes using Kaplan-Meier plots, ROC curves and calibration plots. RESULTS: Correlation between the five calculators varied from 0.59 to 0.86. There were considerable differences between individual predictions from pairs of calculators, with as many as 64% of patients having predictions that differed by more than 10%. Four of five calculators were well calibrated. For all calculators the predictions were associated with survival outcomes. The area under the ROC curve ranged from 0.65 to 0.71, with C-indices ranging from 0.63 to 0.67. An average of the 5 predictions had slightly better performance than any individual calculator. CONCLUSION: Five prognostic calculators designed to predict individual outcomes of oral cancer differed significantly in their assessments of risk. Most were well calibrated and had modest discriminatory ability. Given the increasing importance of individualized risk prediction, more robust models are needed.
BACKGROUND: Optimal management of oral cancer relies upon accurate and individualized risk prediction of relevant clinical outcomes. Individualized prognostic calculators have been developed to guide patient-physician communication and treatment-related decision-making. However it is critical to scrutinize their accuracy prior to integrating into clinical care. AIM: To compare and evaluate oral cavity cancer prognostic calculators using an independent dataset. METHODS: Five prognostic calculators incorporating patient and tumor characteristics were identified that evaluated five-year overall survival. A total of 505 patients with previously untreated oral cancer diagnosed between 2003 and 2014 were analyzed. Calculators were applied to each patient to generate individual predicted survival probabilities. Predictions were compared among prognostic tools and with observed outcomes using Kaplan-Meier plots, ROC curves and calibration plots. RESULTS: Correlation between the five calculators varied from 0.59 to 0.86. There were considerable differences between individual predictions from pairs of calculators, with as many as 64% of patients having predictions that differed by more than 10%. Four of five calculators were well calibrated. For all calculators the predictions were associated with survival outcomes. The area under the ROC curve ranged from 0.65 to 0.71, with C-indices ranging from 0.63 to 0.67. An average of the 5 predictions had slightly better performance than any individual calculator. CONCLUSION: Five prognostic calculators designed to predict individual outcomes of oral cancer differed significantly in their assessments of risk. Most were well calibrated and had modest discriminatory ability. Given the increasing importance of individualized risk prediction, more robust models are needed.
Authors: Samuel J Wang; Amanda R Wissel; Celine B Ord; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; C David Fuller; John M Holland; Neil D Gross Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: Pablo H Montero; Changhong Yu; Frank L Palmer; Purvi D Patel; Ian Ganly; Jatin P Shah; Ashok R Shaha; Jay O Boyle; Dennis H Kraus; Bhuvanesh Singh; Richard J Wong; Luc G Morris; Michael W Kattan; Snehal G Patel Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-10-25 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Borsika A Rabin; Bridget Gaglio; Tristan Sanders; Larissa Nekhlyudov; James W Dearing; Sheana Bull; Russell E Glasgow; Alfred Marcus Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2013-08-16 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Phillip L Ross; Claudia Gerigk; Mithat Gonen; Ofer Yossepowitch; Ilias Cagiannos; Pramod C Sogani; Peter T Scardino; Michael W Kattan Journal: Semin Urol Oncol Date: 2002-05
Authors: Frank R Datema; Marciano B Ferrier; Marc P van der Schroeff; Robert J Baatenburg de Jong Journal: Head Neck Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Shama Virani; Emily Bellile; Carol R Bradford; Thomas E Carey; Douglas B Chepeha; Justin A Colacino; Joseph I Helman; Jonathan B McHugh; Lisa A Peterson; Maureen A Sartor; Jeremy Mg Taylor; Heather M Walline; Greg T Wolf; Laura S Rozek Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2015-10-30 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Shaum Sridharan; Lester D R Thompson; Bibianna Purgina; Charles D Sturgis; Akeesha A Shah; Brian Burkey; Madalina Tuluc; David Cognetti; Bin Xu; Kevin Higgins; Juan C Hernandez-Prera; Dominick Guerrero; Manish M Bundele; Seungwon Kim; Umamaheswar Duvvuri; Robert L Ferris; William E Gooding; Simion I Chiosea Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-06-07 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Connor W Hoban; Lauren J Beesley; Emily L Bellile; Yilun Sun; Matthew E Spector; Gregory T Wolf; Jeremy M G Taylor; Andrew G Shuman Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-11-07 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Lauren J Beesley; Peter G Hawkins; Lahin M Amlani; Emily L Bellile; Keith A Casper; Steven B Chinn; Avraham Eisbruch; Michelle L Mierzwa; Matthew E Spector; Gregory T Wolf; Andrew G Shuman; Jeremy M G Taylor Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-10-06 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Emily J Marchiano; Noah J Mathis; Emily L Bellile; Remy Lobo; Mohannad Ibrahim; Joshua D Smith; Andrew C Birkeland; Keith A Casper; Kelly M Malloy; Paul L Swiecicki; Francis P Worden; Michelle L Mierzwa; J Chad Brenner; Carol R Bradford; Chaz L Stucken; Mark E Prince; Andrew J Rosko; Andrew G Shuman; Jonathan B McHugh; Matthew E Spector; Steven B Chinn Journal: Oral Oncol Date: 2020-07-10 Impact factor: 5.337
Authors: Lauren J Beesley; Andrew G Shuman; Michelle L Mierzwa; Emily L Bellile; Benjamin S Rosen; Keith A Casper; Mohannad Ibrahim; Sarah M Dermody; Gregory T Wolf; Steven B Chinn; Matthew E Spector; Robert J Baatenburg de Jong; Emilie A C Dronkers; Jeremy M G Taylor Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-08-02