Clinical risk calculators are now widely available but have generally been implemented in a static and one-size-fits-all fashion.
FREE DAILY AND WEEKLY NEWSLETTERS OFFERED BY CONTENT OF INTEREST
Did you find this article relevant? Subscribe to UroToday-GUOncToday!
The fields of GU Oncology and Urology are advancing rapidly including new treatments, enrolling clinical trials, screening and surveillance recommendations along with updated guidelines. Join us as one of our subscribers who rely on UroToday as their must-read source for the latest news and data on drugs. Sign up today for blogs, video conversations, conference highlights and abstracts from peer-review publications by disease and condition delivered to your inbox and read on the go.
The objective of this study was to challenge these notions and show via a case study concerning risk-based screening for prostate cancer how calculators can be dynamically and locally tailored to improve on-site patient accuracy. Yearly data from five international prostate biopsy cohorts (3 in the US, 1 in Austria, 1 in England) were used to compare 6 methods for annual risk prediction: static use of the online US-developed Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator (PCPTRC); recalibration of the PCPTRC; revision of the PCPTRC; building a new model each year using logistic regression, Bayesian prior-to-posterior updating, or random forests. All methods performed similarly with respect to discrimination, except for random forests, which were worse. All methods except for random forests greatly improved calibration over the static PCPTRC in all cohorts except for Austria, where the PCPTRC had the best calibration followed closely by recalibration. The case study shows that a simple annual recalibration of a general online risk tool for prostate cancer can improve its accuracy with respect to the local patient practice at hand.
Strobl AN, Vickers AJ, van Calster B, Steyerberg E, Leach RJ, Thompson IM, Ankerst DP. Are you the author?
TU München, Department of Mathematics, Munich, Germany; HelmholtzZentrum München, Institute of Computational Biology, Munich, Germany; Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, New York City, NY, USA; KU Leuven, Department of Development and Regeneration, Belgium; Erasmus MC, Department of Public Health, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, Department of Cellular and Structural Biology, San Antonio, TX, USA; University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, Department of Urology, San Antonio, TX, USA; University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, Department of Urology, San Antonio, TX, USA; University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, Department of Urology, San Antonio, TX, USA; University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Reference: J Biomed Inform. 2015 May 16. pii: S1532-0464(15)00080-5.