Literature DB >> 35702631

A simple framework to identify optimal cost-effective risk thresholds for a single screen: Comparison to Decision Curve Analysis.

Hormuzd A Katki1, Ionut Bebu2.   

Abstract

Decision Curve Analysis (DCA) is a popular approach for assessing biomarkers and risk models, but does not require costs and thus cannot identify optimal risk thresholds for actions. Full decision analyses can identify optimal thresholds, but typically used methods are complex and often difficult to understand. We develop a simple framework to calculate the Incremental Net Benefit for a single-time screen as a function of costs (for tests and treatments) and effectiveness (life-years gained). We provide simple expressions for the optimal cost-effective risk-threshold and, equally importantly, for the monetary value of life-years gained associated with the risk-threshold. We consider the controversy over the risk-threshold to screen women for mutations in BRCA1/2. Importantly, most, and sometimes even all, of the thresholds identified by DCA are infeasible based on their associated dollars per life-year gained. Our simple framework facilitates sensitivity analyses to cost and effectiveness parameters. The proposed approach estimates optimal risk thresholds in a simple and transparent manner, provides intuition about which quantities are critical, and may serve as a bridge between DCA and a full decision analysis.

Entities:  

Keywords:  AUC; BRCA1; BRCA2; Decision Curves; Diagnostic Testing; Incremental Net Benefit; Net Benefit; ROC; Screening; Youden’s index; cost effectiveness; decision analysis; risk prediction

Year:  2021        PMID: 35702631      PMCID: PMC9190212          DOI: 10.1111/rssa.12680

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc        ISSN: 0964-1998            Impact factor:   2.175


  18 in total

1.  Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue: a framework for the marriage of health econometrics and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Jeffrey S Hoch; Andrew H Briggs; Andrew R Willan
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 3.046

2.  Assessing the Clinical Impact of Risk Prediction Models With Decision Curves: Guidance for Correct Interpretation and Appropriate Use.

Authors:  Kathleen F Kerr; Marshall D Brown; Kehao Zhu; Holly Janes
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-05-31       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  The risk of cancer associated with specific mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2 among Ashkenazi Jews.

Authors:  J P Struewing; P Hartge; S Wacholder; S M Baker; M Berlin; M McAdams; M M Timmerman; L C Brody; M A Tucker
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1997-05-15       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  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

5.  The threshold approach to clinical decision making.

Authors:  S G Pauker; J P Kassirer
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1980-05-15       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  A Pragmatic Testing-Eligibility Framework for Population Mutation Screening: The Example of BRCA1/2.

Authors:  Ana F Best; Margaret A Tucker; Megan N Frone; Mark H Greene; June A Peters; Hormuzd A Katki
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2019-01-28       Impact factor: 4.254

7.  Determining carrier probabilities for breast cancer-susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2.

Authors:  G Parmigiani; D Berry; O Aguilar
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 11.025

8.  Risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer in women: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

Authors:  Virginia A Moyer
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2014-02-18       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Using relative utility curves to evaluate risk prediction.

Authors:  Stuart G Baker; Nancy R Cook; Andrew Vickers; Barnett S Kramer
Journal:  J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc       Date:  2009-10-01       Impact factor: 2.483

Review 10.  Recognizing the Limitations of Cancer Overdiagnosis Studies: A First Step Towards Overcoming Them.

Authors:  Ruth Etzioni; Roman Gulati
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2015-11-18       Impact factor: 13.506

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.