Literature DB >> 29454079

A novel metric that quantifies risk stratification for evaluating diagnostic tests: The example of evaluating cervical-cancer screening tests across populations.

Hormuzd A Katki1, Mark Schiffman2.   

Abstract

Our work involves assessing whether new biomarkers might be useful for cervical-cancer screening across populations with different disease prevalences and biomarker distributions. When comparing across populations, we show that standard diagnostic accuracy statistics (predictive values, risk-differences, Youden's index and Area Under the Curve (AUC)) can easily be misinterpreted. We introduce an intuitively simple statistic for a 2 × 2 table, Mean Risk Stratification (MRS): the average change in risk (pre-test vs. post-test) revealed for tested individuals. High MRS implies better risk separation achieved by testing. MRS has 3 key advantages for comparing test performance across populations with different disease prevalences and biomarker distributions. First, MRS demonstrates that conventional predictive values and the risk-difference do not measure risk-stratification because they do not account for test-positivity rates. Second, Youden's index and AUC measure only multiplicative relative gains in risk-stratification: AUC = 0.6 achieves only 20% of maximum risk-stratification (AUC = 0.9 achieves 80%). Third, large relative gains in risk-stratification might not imply large absolute gains if disease is rare, demonstrating a "high-bar" to justify population-based screening for rare diseases such as cancer. We illustrate MRS by our experience comparing the performance of cervical-cancer screening tests in China vs. the USA. The test with the worst AUC = 0.72 in China (visual inspection with acetic acid) provides twice the risk-stratification (i.e. MRS) of the test with best AUC = 0.83 in the USA (human papillomavirus and Pap cotesting) because China has three times more cervical precancer/cancer. MRS could be routinely calculated to better understand the clinical/public-health implications of standard diagnostic accuracy statistics. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  AUC; Biomarkers; Cervical cancer; Diagnostic testing; HPV; Mean Risk Stratification; Number Needed to Test; ROC; Risk prediction; Screening; Youden's index

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29454079      PMCID: PMC5851601          DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.02.013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prev Med        ISSN: 0091-7435            Impact factor:   4.018


  22 in total

1.  Determining the area under the ROC curve for a binary diagnostic test.

Authors:  S B Cantor; M W Kattan
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2000 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 2.  Limitations of the odds ratio in gauging the performance of a diagnostic, prognostic, or screening marker.

Authors:  Margaret Sullivan Pepe; Holly Janes; Gary Longton; Wendy Leisenring; Polly Newcomb
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2004-05-01       Impact factor: 4.897

3.  Index for rating diagnostic tests.

Authors:  W J YOUDEN
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1950-01       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Benchmarking CIN 3+ risk as the basis for incorporating HPV and Pap cotesting into cervical screening and management guidelines.

Authors:  Hormuzd A Katki; Mark Schiffman; Philip E Castle; Barbara Fetterman; Nancy E Poitras; Thomas Lorey; Li C Cheung; Tina Raine-Bennett; Julia C Gage; Walter K Kinney
Journal:  J Low Genit Tract Dis       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 1.925

5.  The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.

Authors:  J A Hanley; B J McNeil
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1982-04       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Preparing for the Next Round of ASCCP-Sponsored Cervical Screening and Management Guidelines.

Authors:  Mark Schiffman; Nicolas Wentzensen; Michelle J Khan; Philip E Castle; David Chelmow; Warner K Huh; Anna Barbara Moscicki; Colleen K Stockdale; Teresa M Darragh; Michelle Silver; Richard S Guido
Journal:  J Low Genit Tract Dis       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 1.925

7.  p16/Ki-67 Dual Stain Cytology for Detection of Cervical Precancer in HPV-Positive Women.

Authors:  Nicolas Wentzensen; Barbara Fetterman; Philip E Castle; Mark Schiffman; Shannon N Wood; Eric Stiemerling; Diane Tokugawa; Clara Bodelon; Nancy Poitras; Thomas Lorey; Walter Kinney
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2015-09-15       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models.

Authors:  Andrew J Vickers; Elena B Elkin
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2006 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.583

9.  Understanding increments in model performance metrics.

Authors:  Michael J Pencina; Ralph B D'Agostino; Joseph M Massaro
Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal       Date:  2012-12-16       Impact factor: 1.588

Review 10.  Human papillomavirus and cervical cancer.

Authors:  Mark Schiffman; Philip E Castle; Jose Jeronimo; Ana C Rodriguez; Sholom Wacholder
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2007-09-08       Impact factor: 79.321

View more
  5 in total

1.  SummaryAUC: a tool for evaluating the performance of polygenic risk prediction models in validation datasets with only summary level statistics.

Authors:  Lei Song; Aiyi Liu; Jianxin Shi
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2019-10-15       Impact factor: 6.937

2.  Quantifying risk stratification provided by diagnostic tests and risk predictions: Comparison to AUC and decision curve analysis.

Authors:  Hormuzd A Katki
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2019-04-30       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  A Prospective Study of Circulating Chemokines and Angiogenesis Markers and Risk of Multiple Myeloma and Its Precursor.

Authors:  Jonathan N Hofmann; Ola Landgren; Rebecca Landy; Troy J Kemp; Loredana Santo; Charlene M McShane; Joseph J Shearer; Qing Lan; Nathaniel Rothman; Ligia A Pinto; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Allan Hildesheim; Hormuzd A Katki; Mark P Purdue
Journal:  JNCI Cancer Spectr       Date:  2019-12-16

4.  Prospective Evaluation of the Addition of Polygenic Risk Scores to Breast Cancer Risk Models.

Authors:  Sherly X Li; Roger L Milne; Tu Nguyen-Dumont; Xiaochuan Wang; Dallas R English; Graham G Giles; Melissa C Southey; Antonis C Antoniou; Andrew Lee; Shuai Li; Ingrid Winship; John L Hopper; Mary Beth Terry; Robert J MacInnis
Journal:  JNCI Cancer Spectr       Date:  2021-03-02

5.  Association of donor IFNL4 genotype and non-relapse mortality after unrelated donor myeloablative haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation for acute leukaemia: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Shahinaz M Gadalla; Youjin Wang; Tao Wang; Olusegun O Onabajo; A Rouf Banday; Adeola Obajemu; Ezgi Karaesman; Lara Sucheston-Campbell; Theresa Hahn; Jennifer A Sees; Stephen R Spellman; Stephanie J Lee; Hormuzd A Katki; Ludmila Prokunina-Olsson
Journal:  Lancet Haematol       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 18.959

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.