Emily C Zabor1, Daniel Coit2, Jeffrey E Gershenwald3, Kelly M McMasters4, James S Michaelson5, Arnold J Stromberg6, Katherine S Panageas7. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. zabore@mskcc.org. 2. Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 3. Department of Surgical Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 4. Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA. 5. Laboratory for Quantitative Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 6. Department of Statistics, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA. 7. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prognostic models are increasingly being made available online, where they can be publicly accessed by both patients and clinicians. These online tools are an important resource for patients to better understand their prognosis and for clinicians to make informed decisions about treatment and follow-up. The goal of this analysis was to highlight the possible variability in multiple online prognostic tools in a single disease. METHODS: To demonstrate the variability in survival predictions across online prognostic tools, we applied a single validation dataset to three online melanoma prognostic tools. Data on melanoma patients treated at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center between 2000 and 2014 were retrospectively collected. Calibration was assessed using calibration plots and discrimination was assessed using the C-index. RESULTS: In this demonstration project, we found important differences across the three models that led to variability in individual patients' predicted survival across the tools, especially in the lower range of predictions. In a validation test using a single-institution data set, calibration and discrimination varied across the three models. CONCLUSIONS: This study underscores the potential variability both within and across online tools, and highlights the importance of using methodological rigor when developing a prognostic model that will be made publicly available online. The results also reinforce that careful development and thoughtful interpretation, including understanding a given tool's limitations, are required in order for online prognostic tools that provide survival predictions to be a useful resource for both patients and clinicians.
BACKGROUND: Prognostic models are increasingly being made available online, where they can be publicly accessed by both patients and clinicians. These online tools are an important resource for patients to better understand their prognosis and for clinicians to make informed decisions about treatment and follow-up. The goal of this analysis was to highlight the possible variability in multiple online prognostic tools in a single disease. METHODS: To demonstrate the variability in survival predictions across online prognostic tools, we applied a single validation dataset to three online melanoma prognostic tools. Data on melanomapatients treated at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center between 2000 and 2014 were retrospectively collected. Calibration was assessed using calibration plots and discrimination was assessed using the C-index. RESULTS: In this demonstration project, we found important differences across the three models that led to variability in individual patients' predicted survival across the tools, especially in the lower range of predictions. In a validation test using a single-institution data set, calibration and discrimination varied across the three models. CONCLUSIONS: This study underscores the potential variability both within and across online tools, and highlights the importance of using methodological rigor when developing a prognostic model that will be made publicly available online. The results also reinforce that careful development and thoughtful interpretation, including understanding a given tool's limitations, are required in order for online prognostic tools that provide survival predictions to be a useful resource for both patients and clinicians.
Authors: Alyson L Mahar; Carolyn Compton; Susan Halabi; Kenneth R Hess; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Richard A Scolyer; Patti A Groome Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-04-06 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Glenda G Callender; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Michael E Egger; Charles R Scoggins; Robert C G Martin; Christopher W Schacherer; Michael J Edwards; Marshall M Urist; Merrick I Ross; Arnold J Stromberg; Kelly M McMasters Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2012-02-17 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Michael W Kattan; Kenneth R Hess; Mahul B Amin; Ying Lu; Karl G M Moons; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Phyllis A Gimotty; Justin H Guinney; Susan Halabi; Alexander J Lazar; Alyson L Mahar; Tushar Patel; Daniel J Sargent; Martin R Weiser; Carolyn Compton Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 508.702
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: Ana Carolina Alba; Thomas Agoritsas; Michael Walsh; Steven Hanna; Alfonso Iorio; P J Devereaux; Thomas McGinn; Gordon Guyatt Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-10-10 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: L Leon Chen; Matthew E Nolan; Melvin J Silverstein; Martin C Mihm; Arthur J Sober; Kenneth K Tanabe; Barbara L Smith; Jerry Younger; James S Michaelson Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-11-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Georgina V Long; Axel Hauschild; Mario Santinami; Victoria Atkinson; Mario Mandalà; Vanna Chiarion-Sileni; James Larkin; Marta Nyakas; Caroline Dutriaux; Andrew Haydon; Caroline Robert; Laurent Mortier; Jacob Schachter; Dirk Schadendorf; Thierry Lesimple; Ruth Plummer; Ran Ji; Pingkuan Zhang; Bijoyesh Mookerjee; Jeff Legos; Richard Kefford; Reinhard Dummer; John M Kirkwood Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-09-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: James S Michaelson; L Leon Chen; Melvin J Silverstein; Justin A Cheongsiatmoy; Martin C Mihm; Arthur J Sober; Kenneth K Tanabe; Barbara L Smith; Jerry Younger Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-11-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: James S Michaelson; L Leon Chen; Melvin J Silverstein; Martin C Mihm; Arthur J Sober; Kenneth K Tanabe; Barbara L Smith; Jerry Younger Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-11-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Charles M Balch; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Seng-Jaw Soong; John F Thompson; Michael B Atkins; David R Byrd; Antonio C Buzaid; Alistair J Cochran; Daniel G Coit; Shouluan Ding; Alexander M Eggermont; Keith T Flaherty; Phyllis A Gimotty; John M Kirkwood; Kelly M McMasters; Martin C Mihm; Donald L Morton; Merrick I Ross; Arthur J Sober; Vernon K Sondak Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-11-16 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Alexander M M Eggermont; Domenico Bellomo; Suzette M Arias-Mejias; Enrica Quattrocchi; Sindhuja Sominidi-Damodaran; Alina G Bridges; Julia S Lehman; Tina J Hieken; James W Jakub; Dennis H Murphree; Mark R Pittelkow; Jason C Sluzevich; Mark A Cappel; Sanjay P Bagaria; Charles Perniciaro; Félicia J Tjien-Fooh; Barbara Rentroia-Pacheco; Renske Wever; Martin H van Vliet; Jvalini Dwarkasing; Alexander Meves Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2020-10-05 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Serigne N Lo; Jiawen Ma; Richard A Scolyer; Lauren E Haydu; Jonathan R Stretch; Robyn P M Saw; Omgo E Nieweg; Kerwin F Shannon; Andrew J Spillane; Sydney Ch'ng; Graham J Mann; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; John F Thompson; Alexander H R Varey Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-06-12 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: D Verver; D van Klaveren; V Franke; A C J van Akkooi; P Rutkowski; U Keilholz; A M M Eggermont; T Nijsten; D J Grünhagen; C Verhoef Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2018-10-11 Impact factor: 6.939