Literature DB >> 35732292

The Intervention Probability Curve: Modeling the Practical Application of Threshold-Guided Decision-Making, Evaluated in Lung, Prostate, and Ovarian Cancers.

Michael N Kammer1, Dianna J Rowe1, Stephen A Deppen1,2, Eric L Grogan1,2, Alexander M Kaizer3, Anna E Barón3, Fabien Maldonado1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic prediction models are useful guides when considering lesions suspicious for cancer, as they provide a quantitative estimate of the probability that a lesion is malignant. However, the decision to intervene ultimately rests on patient and physician preferences. The appropriate intervention in many clinical situations is typically defined by clinically relevant, actionable subgroups based upon the probability of malignancy. However, the "all-or-nothing" approach of threshold-based decisions is in practice incorrect.
METHODS: Here, we present a novel approach to understanding clinical decision-making, the intervention probability curve (IPC). The IPC models the likelihood that an intervention will be chosen as a continuous function of the probability of disease. We propose the cumulative distribution function as a suitable model. The IPC is explored using the National Lung Screening Trial and the Prostate Lung Colorectal and Ovarian Screening Trial datasets.
RESULTS: Fitting the IPC results in a continuous curve as a function of pretest probability of cancer with high correlation (R2 > 0.97 for each) with fitted parameters closely aligned with professional society guidelines.
CONCLUSIONS: The IPC allows analysis of intervention decisions in a continuous, rather than threshold-based, approach to further understand the role of biomarkers and risk models in clinical practice. IMPACT: We propose that consideration of IPCs will yield significant insights into the practical relevance of threshold-based management strategies and could provide a novel method to estimate the actual clinical utility of novel biomarkers. ©2022 American Association for Cancer Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35732292      PMCID: PMC9491691          DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-22-0190

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.090


  22 in total

1.  Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: from area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond.

Authors:  Michael J Pencina; Ralph B D'Agostino; Ralph B D'Agostino; Ramachandran S Vasan
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2008-01-30       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Breast cancer patient preferences for test result communication.

Authors:  Sneha Phadke; Mark Vander Weg; Najla Itani; Nicole Grogan; Timothy Ginader; Sarah Mott; Bradley McDowell
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2019-07-12       Impact factor: 2.431

3.  Pulmonologists' Reported Use of Guidelines and Shared Decision-making in Evaluation of Pulmonary Nodules: A Qualitative Study.

Authors:  Renda Soylemez Wiener; Christopher G Slatore; Chris Gillespie; Jack A Clark
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 9.410

4.  A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA 125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer.

Authors:  I Jacobs; D Oram; J Fairbanks; J Turner; C Frost; J G Grudzinskas
Journal:  Br J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  1990-10

5.  Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening.

Authors:  Denise R Aberle; Amanda M Adams; Christine D Berg; William C Black; Jonathan D Clapp; Richard M Fagerstrom; Ilana F Gareen; Constantine Gatsonis; Pamela M Marcus; JoRean D Sicks
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2011-06-29       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial of the National Cancer Institute: history, organization, and status.

Authors:  J K Gohagan; P C Prorok; R B Hayes; B S Kramer
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  2000-12

7.  Clinical prediction model to characterize pulmonary nodules: validation and added value of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography.

Authors:  Gerarda J Herder; Harm van Tinteren; Richard P Golding; Piet J Kostense; Emile F Comans; Egbert F Smit; Otto S Hoekstra
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 9.410

8.  A bias-corrected net reclassification improvement for clinical subgroups.

Authors:  Nina P Paynter; Nancy R Cook
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2012-10-05       Impact factor: 2.583

9.  Advances in measuring the effect of individual predictors of cardiovascular risk: the role of reclassification measures.

Authors:  Nancy R Cook; Paul M Ridker
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-06-02       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  A Contemporary Prostate Biopsy Risk Calculator Based on Multiple Heterogeneous Cohorts.

Authors:  Donna P Ankerst; Johanna Straubinger; Katharina Selig; Lourdes Guerrios; Amanda De Hoedt; Javier Hernandez; Michael A Liss; Robin J Leach; Stephen J Freedland; Michael W Kattan; Robert Nam; Alexander Haese; Francesco Montorsi; Stephen A Boorjian; Matthew R Cooperberg; Cedric Poyet; Emily Vertosick; Andrew J Vickers
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2018-05-16       Impact factor: 20.096

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.