Catharina G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn1, Sabine Siesling2,3, Vinzenz Völkel4, Tom A Hueting5,1, Teresa Draeger4, Marissa C van Maaren1,6, Linda de Munck6, Luc J A Strobbe7, Gabe S Sonke8, Marjanka K Schmidt9, Marjan van Hezewijk10. 1. Department of Health Technology and Services Research, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, POBox 217, Enschede, 7500 AE, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Health Technology and Services Research, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, POBox 217, Enschede, 7500 AE, The Netherlands. s.siesling@iknl.nl. 3. Department of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), POBox 19079, Utrecht, 3501 DB, The Netherlands. s.siesling@iknl.nl. 4. Tumor Center Regensburg/University of Regensburg, Institute for Quality Control and Health Services Research, Regensburg, Germany. 5. Evidencio, medical Decision Support, Haaksbergen, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), POBox 19079, Utrecht, 3501 DB, The Netherlands. 7. Department of Surgical Oncology, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 8. Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 9. Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 10. Institution for Radiation Oncology, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To extend the functionality of the existing INFLUENCE nomogram for locoregional recurrence (LRR) of breast cancer toward the prediction of secondary primary tumors (SP) and distant metastases (DM) using updated follow-up data and the best suitable statistical approaches. METHODS: Data on women diagnosed with non-metastatic invasive breast cancer were derived from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (n = 13,494). To provide flexible time-dependent individual risk predictions for LRR, SP, and DM, three statistical approaches were assessed; a Cox proportional hazard approach (COX), a parametric spline approach (PAR), and a random survival forest (RSF). These approaches were evaluated on their discrimination using the Area Under the Curve (AUC) statistic and on calibration using the Integrated Calibration Index (ICI). To correct for optimism, the performance measures were assessed by drawing 200 bootstrap samples. RESULTS: Age, tumor grade, pT, pN, multifocality, type of surgery, hormonal receptor status, HER2-status, and adjuvant therapy were included as predictors. While all three approaches showed adequate calibration, the RSF approach offers the best optimism-corrected 5-year AUC for LRR (0.75, 95%CI: 0.74-0.76) and SP (0.67, 95%CI: 0.65-0.68). For the prediction of DM, all three approaches showed equivalent discrimination (5-year AUC: 0.77-0.78), while COX seems to have an advantage concerning calibration (ICI < 0.01). Finally, an online calculator of INFLUENCE 2.0 was created. CONCLUSIONS: INFLUENCE 2.0 is a flexible model to predict time-dependent individual risks of LRR, SP and DM at a 5-year scale; it can support clinical decision-making regarding personalized follow-up strategies for curatively treated non-metastatic breast cancer patients.
PURPOSE: To extend the functionality of the existing INFLUENCE nomogram for locoregional recurrence (LRR) of breast cancer toward the prediction of secondary primary tumors (SP) and distant metastases (DM) using updated follow-up data and the best suitable statistical approaches. METHODS: Data on women diagnosed with non-metastatic invasive breast cancer were derived from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (n = 13,494). To provide flexible time-dependent individual risk predictions for LRR, SP, and DM, three statistical approaches were assessed; a Cox proportional hazard approach (COX), a parametric spline approach (PAR), and a random survival forest (RSF). These approaches were evaluated on their discrimination using the Area Under the Curve (AUC) statistic and on calibration using the Integrated Calibration Index (ICI). To correct for optimism, the performance measures were assessed by drawing 200 bootstrap samples. RESULTS: Age, tumor grade, pT, pN, multifocality, type of surgery, hormonal receptor status, HER2-status, and adjuvant therapy were included as predictors. While all three approaches showed adequate calibration, the RSF approach offers the best optimism-corrected 5-year AUC for LRR (0.75, 95%CI: 0.74-0.76) and SP (0.67, 95%CI: 0.65-0.68). For the prediction of DM, all three approaches showed equivalent discrimination (5-year AUC: 0.77-0.78), while COX seems to have an advantage concerning calibration (ICI < 0.01). Finally, an online calculator of INFLUENCE 2.0 was created. CONCLUSIONS: INFLUENCE 2.0 is a flexible model to predict time-dependent individual risks of LRR, SP and DM at a 5-year scale; it can support clinical decision-making regarding personalized follow-up strategies for curatively treated non-metastatic breast cancerpatients.
Authors: Martine Moossdorff; Lori M van Roozendaal; Luc J A Strobbe; Stefan Aebi; David A Cameron; J Michael Dixon; Armando E Giuliano; Bruce G Haffty; Brigid E Hickey; Clifford A Hudis; V Suzanne Klimberg; Bogda Koczwara; Thorsten Kühn; Marc E Lippman; Anthony Lucci; Martine Piccart; Benjamin D Smith; Vivianne C G Tjan-Heijnen; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Kimberly J Van Zee; Jan B Vermorken; Giuseppe Viale; Adri C Voogd; Irene L Wapnir; Julia R White; Marjolein L Smidt Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-11-07 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: T Gamucci; A Vaccaro; F Ciancola; L Pizzuti; I Sperduti; L Moscetti; F Longo; M A Fabbri; M A Giampaolo; L Mentuccia; L Di Lauro; P Vici Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2013-02-15 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Annemieke Witteveen; Ingrid M H Vliegen; Gabe S Sonke; Joost M Klaase; Maarten J IJzerman; Sabine Siesling Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2015-07-11 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Daniele Giardiello; Maartje J Hooning; Michael Hauptmann; Renske Keeman; B A M Heemskerk-Gerritsen; Heiko Becher; Carl Blomqvist; Stig E Bojesen; Manjeet K Bolla; Nicola J Camp; Kamila Czene; Peter Devilee; Diana M Eccles; Peter A Fasching; Jonine D Figueroa; Henrik Flyger; Montserrat García-Closas; Christopher A Haiman; Ute Hamann; John L Hopper; Anna Jakubowska; Floor E Leeuwen; Annika Lindblom; Jan Lubiński; Sara Margolin; Maria Elena Martinez; Heli Nevanlinna; Ines Nevelsteen; Saskia Pelders; Paul D P Pharoah; Sabine Siesling; Melissa C Southey; Annemieke H van der Hout; Liselotte P van Hest; Jenny Chang-Claude; Per Hall; Douglas F Easton; Ewout W Steyerberg; Marjanka K Schmidt Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2022-10-21 Impact factor: 8.408
Authors: J W Ankersmid; F K Lansink Rotgerink; L J A Strobbe; C F van Uden-Kraan; S Siesling; C H C Drossaert Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2022-07-30 Impact factor: 4.624
Authors: Jet W Ankersmid; Pauline E R Spronk; Anneke M Zeillemaker; Sabine Siesling Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2022-03-13 Impact factor: 4.624