Dataset Information

Risk prediction models for head and neck cancer: A rapid review.

ABSTRACT: Cancer risk assessment models are used to support prevention and early detection. However, few models have been developed for head and neck cancer (HNC). A rapid review of Embase and MEDLINE identified n = 3045 articles. Following dual screening, n = 14 studies were included. Quality appraisal using the PROBAST (risk of bias) instrument was conducted, and a narrative synthesis was performed to identify the best performing models in terms of risk factors and designs. Six of the 14 models were assessed as "high" quality. Of these, three had high predictive performance achieving area under curve values over 0.8 (0.87-0.89). The common features of these models were their inclusion of predictors carefully tailored to the target population/anatomical subsite and development with external validation. Some existing models do possess the potential to identify and stratify those at risk of HNC but there is scope for improvement.

SUBMITTER: Smith CDL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9764804 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Risk prediction models for head and neck cancer: A rapid review.

Smith Craig D L CDL McMahon Alex D AD Ross Alastair A Inman Gareth J GJ Conway David I DI

Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology 20221128 6

<h4>Background</h4>Cancer risk assessment models are used to support prevention and early detection. However, few models have been developed for head and neck cancer (HNC).<h4>Methods</h4>A rapid review of Embase and MEDLINE identified <i>n</i> = 3045 articles. Following dual screening, <i>n</i> = 14 studies were included. Quality appraisal using the PROBAST (risk of bias) instrument was conducted, and a narrative synthesis was performed to identify the best performing models in terms of risk fa ...[more]

PMID: 36544947

Similar Datasets

Project description:Radiomics analysis provides a promising avenue towards the enabling of personalized radiotherapy. Most frequently, prognostic radiomics models are based on features extracted from medical images that are acquired before treatment. Here, we investigate whether combining data from multiple timepoints during treatment and from multiple imaging modalities can improve the predictive ability of radiomics models. We extracted radiomics features from computed tomography (CT) images acquired before treatment as well as two and three weeks after the start of radiochemotherapy for 55 patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Additionally, we obtained features from FDG-PET images taken before treatment and three weeks after the start of therapy. Cox proportional hazards models were then built based on features of the different image modalities, treatment timepoints, and combinations thereof using two different feature selection methods in a five-fold cross-validation approach. Based on the cross-validation results, feature signatures were derived and their performance was independently validated. Discrimination regarding loco-regional control was assessed by the concordance index (C-index) and log-rank tests were performed to assess risk stratification. The best prognostic performance was obtained for timepoints during treatment for all modalities. Overall, CT was the best discriminating modality with an independent validation C-index of 0.78 for week two and weeks two and three combined. However, none of these models achieved statistically significant patient stratification. Models based on FDG-PET features from week three provided both satisfactory discrimination (C-index = 0.61 and 0.64) and statistically significant stratification (p=0.044 and p<0.001), but produced highly imbalanced risk groups. After independent validation on larger datasets, the value of (multimodal) radiomics models combining several imaging timepoints should be prospectively assessed for personalized treatment strategies.

Project description:BackgroundWhile different lung cancer risk prediction models have been established as essential tools to identify high-risk participants for lung cancer screening programs, evaluations of their risk discriminatory performances have reported heterogenous findings in different research cohorts. We therefore aimed to summarise results of head-to-head comparisons of the predictive performance of various lung cancer risk models performed within the same study population.MethodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we performed a systematic search of PubMed and Web of Science databases for primary studies published from inception to Oct 16, 2024. Articles comparing the performance of questionnaire-based lung cancer risk models in an independent, external validation cohort of participants with previous or current smoking exposure were included. The main reasons for exclusion of studies were if only one model was assessed in the external population or risk discrimination was not evaluated. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to synthesize differences in the area under the curve (AUC) of two models compared in multiple populations. To assess the risk of bias, PROBAST (the Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool) was used. The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42023427911.FindingsThe systematic search yielded 5568 records. In total, 15 eligible studies were included in the meta-analysis, comprising 4,134,648 individuals with previous or current smoking exposure, of whom 45,448 (1.10%) developed LC within 5-7 years. Among the nine models that were compared, AUC differences reached up to 0.050 between two models. The Lung Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (LCRAT), Bach model and PLCOm2012 model consistently had a higher AUC when compared to any other model, with AUC differences ranging between 0.018 (95% CI 0.011, 0.026) and 0.044 (95% CI 0.038, 0.049). The risk of bias and applicability concerns were deemed low in eight, and high in seven of the included studies. Results excluding studies with high risk of bias were mostly consistent. Among eight of the 24 model pairs that were compared, there was notable between-study heterogeneity (I2 ≥50%).InterpretationOur systematic review and meta-analyses of head-to-head comparisons disclose major differences in predictive performance of widely used lung cancer risk models. Although our review is limited to the availability of head-to-head comparisons, evidence from current cohort-based model comparisons indicates that the LCRAT, Bach and PLCOm2012 consistently outperformed alternative questionnaire-based risk prediction tools.FundingFunded by the European Union.

Project description:ContextEarly detection of kidney cancer improves survival; however, low prevalence means that population-wide screening may be inefficient. Stratification of the population into risk categories could allow for the introduction of a screening programme tailored to individuals.ObjectiveThis review will identify and compare published models that predict the risk of developing kidney cancer in the general population.Evidence acquisitionA search identified primary research reporting or validating models predicting the risk of kidney cancer in Medline and EMBASE. After screening identified studies for inclusion, we extracted data onto a standardised form. The risk models were classified using the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) guidelines and evaluated using the PROBAST assessment tool.Evidence synthesisThe search identified 15 281 articles. Sixty-two satisfied the inclusion criteria; performance measures were provided for 11 models. Some models predicted the risk of prevalent undiagnosed disease and others future incident disease. Six of the models had been validated, two using external populations. The most commonly included risk factors were age, smoking status, and body mass index. Most of the models had acceptable-to-good discrimination (area under the receiver-operating curve >0.7) in development and validation. Many models also had high specificity; however, several had low sensitivity. The highest performance was seen for the models using only biomarkers to detect kidney cancer; however, these were developed and validated in small case-control studies.ConclusionsWe identified a small number of risk models that could be used to stratify the population according to the risk of kidney cancer. Most exhibit reasonable discrimination, but a few have been validated externally in population-based studies.Patient summaryIn this review, we looked at mathematical models predicting the likelihood of an individual developing kidney cancer. We found several suitable models, using a range of risk factors (such as age and smoking) to predict the risk for individuals. Most of the models identified require further testing in the general population to confirm their usefulness.

Dataset Information

Risk prediction models for head and neck cancer: A rapid review.

Publications

Risk prediction models for head and neck cancer: A rapid review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets