Sarah Booth1, Richard D Riley2, Joie Ensor2, Paul C Lambert1,3, Mark J Rutherford1. 1. Biostatistics Research Group, Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK. 2. Centre for Prognosis Research, Research Institute for Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK. 3. Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prognostic models are typically developed in studies covering long time periods. However, if more recent years have seen improvements in survival, then using the full dataset may lead to out-of-date survival predictions. Period analysis addresses this by developing the model in a subset of the data from a recent time window, but results in a reduction of sample size. METHODS: We propose a new approach, called temporal recalibration, to combine the advantages of period analysis and full cohort analysis. This approach develops a model in the entire dataset and then recalibrates the baseline survival using a period analysis sample. The approaches are demonstrated utilizing a prognostic model in colon cancer built using both Cox proportional hazards and flexible parametric survival models with data from 1996-2005 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program database. Comparison of model predictions with observed survival estimates were made for new patients subsequently diagnosed in 2006 and followed-up until 2015. RESULTS: Period analysis and temporal recalibration provided more up-to-date survival predictions that more closely matched observed survival in subsequent data than the standard full cohort models. In addition, temporal recalibration provided more precise estimates of predictor effects. CONCLUSION: Prognostic models are typically developed using a full cohort analysis that can result in out-of-date long-term survival estimates when survival has improved in recent years. Temporal recalibration is a simple method to address this, which can be used when developing and updating prognostic models to ensure survival predictions are more closely calibrated with the observed survival of individuals diagnosed subsequently.
BACKGROUND: Prognostic models are typically developed in studies covering long time periods. However, if more recent years have seen improvements in survival, then using the full dataset may lead to out-of-date survival predictions. Period analysis addresses this by developing the model in a subset of the data from a recent time window, but results in a reduction of sample size. METHODS: We propose a new approach, called temporal recalibration, to combine the advantages of period analysis and full cohort analysis. This approach develops a model in the entire dataset and then recalibrates the baseline survival using a period analysis sample. The approaches are demonstrated utilizing a prognostic model in colon cancer built using both Cox proportional hazards and flexible parametric survival models with data from 1996-2005 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program database. Comparison of model predictions with observed survival estimates were made for new patients subsequently diagnosed in 2006 and followed-up until 2015. RESULTS: Period analysis and temporal recalibration provided more up-to-date survival predictions that more closely matched observed survival in subsequent data than the standard full cohort models. In addition, temporal recalibration provided more precise estimates of predictor effects. CONCLUSION: Prognostic models are typically developed using a full cohort analysis that can result in out-of-date long-term survival estimates when survival has improved in recent years. Temporal recalibration is a simple method to address this, which can be used when developing and updating prognostic models to ensure survival predictions are more closely calibrated with the observed survival of individuals diagnosed subsequently.
Authors: P Schuetz; M Koller; M Christ-Crain; E Steyerberg; D Stolz; C Müller; H C Bucher; R Bingisser; M Tamm; B Müller Journal: Epidemiol Infect Date: 2008-02-27 Impact factor: 2.451
Authors: Francisco J Candido Dos Reis; Gordon C Wishart; Ed M Dicks; David Greenberg; Jem Rashbass; Marjanka K Schmidt; Alexandra J van den Broek; Ian O Ellis; Andrew Green; Emad Rakha; Tom Maishman; Diana M Eccles; Paul D P Pharoah Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2017-05-22 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Richard D Riley; Kym Ie Snell; Joie Ensor; Danielle L Burke; Frank E Harrell; Karel Gm Moons; Gary S Collins Journal: Stat Med Date: 2018-10-24 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: Sharon E Davis; Jeremiah R Brown; Chad Dorn; Dax Westerman; Richard J Solomon; Michael E Matheny Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2022-08-12
Authors: Ben Lambert; Isaac J Stopard; Amir Momeni-Boroujeni; Rachelle Mendoza; Alejandro Zuretti Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-08-18 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Ash K Clift; Carol A C Coupland; Ruth H Keogh; Karla Diaz-Ordaz; Elizabeth Williamson; Ewen M Harrison; Andrew Hayward; Harry Hemingway; Peter Horby; Nisha Mehta; Jonathan Benger; Kamlesh Khunti; David Spiegelhalter; Aziz Sheikh; Jonathan Valabhji; Ronan A Lyons; John Robson; Malcolm G Semple; Frank Kee; Peter Johnson; Susan Jebb; Tony Williams; Julia Hippisley-Cox Journal: BMJ Date: 2020-10-20