Display options
Cite
Lorent M, Maalmi H, Tessier P, et al. Meta-analysis of predictive models to assess the clinical validity and utility for patient-centered medical decision making: application to the CAncer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA). BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2019;19(1):2doi: 10.1186/s12911-018-0727-2.
Lorent, M., Maalmi, H., Tessier, P., Supiot, S., Dantan, E., & Foucher, Y. (2019). Meta-analysis of predictive models to assess the clinical validity and utility for patient-centered medical decision making: application to the CAncer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA). BMC medical informatics and decision making, 19(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-018-0727-2
Lorent, Marine, et al. "Meta-analysis of predictive models to assess the clinical validity and utility for patient-centered medical decision making: application to the CAncer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA)." BMC medical informatics and decision making vol. 19,1 (2019): 2. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-018-0727-2
Lorent M, Maalmi H, Tessier P, Supiot S, Dantan E, Foucher Y. Meta-analysis of predictive models to assess the clinical validity and utility for patient-centered medical decision making: application to the CAncer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA). BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2019 Jan 07;19(1):2. doi: 10.1186/s12911-018-0727-2. PMID: 30616621; PMCID: PMC6323757.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2019 Jan 07;19(1):2. doi: 10.1186/s12911-018-0727-2.

Meta-analysis of predictive models to assess the clinical validity and utility for patient-centered medical decision making: application to the CAncer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA).

BMC medical informatics and decision making

Marine Lorent, Haïfa Maalmi, Philippe Tessier, Stéphane Supiot, Etienne Dantan, Yohann Foucher

Affiliations

  1. SPHERE (methodS in Patient-centered outcomes & HEalth ResEarch) U1246, INSERM, Nantes University, Tours University, Nantes, France.
  2. Division of Clinical Epidemiology and Aging Research, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.
  3. Department of Radiotherapy, Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest René Gauducheau, Saint Herblain, France.
  4. INSERM UMR892, Nantes University, Nantes, France.
  5. SPHERE (methodS in Patient-centered outcomes & HEalth ResEarch) U1246, INSERM, Nantes University, Tours University, Nantes, France. [email protected].
  6. Nantes University Hospital, Nantes, France. [email protected].
  7. IRS2, SPHERE U1246, 22 boulevard Bénoni Goullin, 44200, Nantes, France. [email protected].

PMID: 30616621 PMCID: PMC6323757 DOI: 10.1186/s12911-018-0727-2

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score was designed and validated several times to predict the biochemical recurrence-free survival after a radical prostatectomy. Our objectives were, first, to study the clinical validity of the CAPRA score, and, second, to assess its clinical utility for stratified medicine from an original patient-centered approach.

METHODS: We proposed a meta-analysis based on a literature search using MEDLINE. Observed and predicted biochemical-recurrence-free survivals were compared to assess the calibration of the CAPRA score. Discriminative capacities were evaluated by estimating the summary time-dependent ROC curve. The clinical utility of the CAPRA score was evaluated according to the following stratified decisions: active monitoring for low-risk patients, prostatectomy for intermediate-risk patients, or radio-hormonal therapy for high risk patients. For this purpose, we assessed CAPRA's clinical utility in terms of its ability to maximize time-dependent utility functions (i.e. Quality-Adjusted Life-Years - QALYs).

RESULTS: We identified 683 manuscripts and finally retained 9 studies. We reported good discriminative capacities with an area under the SROCt curve at 0.73 [95%CI from 0.67 to 0.79], while graphical calibration seemed acceptable. Nevertheless, we also described that the CAPRA score was unable to discriminate between the three medical alternatives, i.e. it did not allow an increase in the number of life years in perfect health (QALYs) of patients with prostate cancer.

CONCLUSIONS: We confirmed the prognostic capacities of the CAPRA score. In contrast, we were not able to demonstrate its clinical usefulness for stratified medicine from a patient-centered perspective. Our results also highlighted the confusion between clinical validity and utility. This distinction should be better considered in order to develop predictive tools useful in practice.

Keywords: Meta-analysis; Patient-centered outcomes; Prostate cancer; Stratified medicine

References

  1. Stat Med. 2002 Jun 15;21(11):1539-58 - PubMed
  2. J Urol. 2006 Dec;176(6 Pt 2):S16-20 - PubMed
  3. Stat Med. 2014 Jul 10;33(15):2521-37 - PubMed
  4. JAMA. 1998 Sep 16;280(11):969-74 - PubMed
  5. Urology. 2008 Aug;72(2):396-400 - PubMed
  6. Qual Life Res. 2010 Jun;19(5):711-20 - PubMed
  7. BJU Int. 2012 Jan;109(1):32-9 - PubMed
  8. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol. 2013 Jan;11(1):14-23 - PubMed
  9. Qual Life Res. 2013 Dec;22(10):2951-62 - PubMed
  10. Control Clin Trials. 1986 Sep;7(3):177-88 - PubMed
  11. Strahlenther Onkol. 2015 Apr;191(4):321-9 - PubMed
  12. Lancet Oncol. 2014 Sep;15(10):1076-89 - PubMed
  13. BJU Int. 2013 Mar;111(3):427-36 - PubMed
  14. J Urol. 2005 Jun;173(6):1938-42 - PubMed
  15. Value Health. 2009 Mar;12 Suppl 1:S5-9 - PubMed
  16. Korean J Urol. 2014 May;55(5):321-6 - PubMed
  17. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2011 Nov;41(11):1259-64 - PubMed
  18. PLoS One. 2018 Jul 26;13(7):e0200780 - PubMed
  19. Stat Methods Med Res. 2016 Apr;25(2):674-85 - PubMed
  20. BJU Int. 2011 Nov;108 Suppl 2:51-6 - PubMed
  21. J Urol. 2007 Nov;178(5):1957-62; discussion 1962 - PubMed
  22. Int J Qual Health Care. 2006 Oct;18(5):377-82 - PubMed
  23. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005 Apr 25;5:14 - PubMed
  24. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009 Jul-Aug;59(4):225-49 - PubMed
  25. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2014 Jun;11(6):308-23 - PubMed
  26. J Clin Oncol. 2008 May 20;26(15):2497-504 - PubMed
  27. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018 Mar 5;16(1):40 - PubMed
  28. J Physiother. 2017 Apr;63(2):121-125 - PubMed
  29. Lancet Oncol. 2010 Nov;11(11):1066-73 - PubMed
  30. Med Decis Making. 2006 Nov-Dec;26(6):565-74 - PubMed
  31. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2014 Jun;11(6):324-34 - PubMed
  32. Cancer. 2011 Nov 15;117(22):5039-46 - PubMed
  33. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Dec 07;13:152 - PubMed
  34. BJU Int. 2012 Dec;110(11):1714-20 - PubMed
  35. J Urol. 2012 Oct;188(4):1144-50 - PubMed
  36. N Engl J Med. 2016 Oct 13;375(15):1425-1437 - PubMed
  37. N Engl J Med. 2016 Oct 13;375(15):1415-1424 - PubMed
  38. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008 Aug 20;100(16):1144-54 - PubMed
  39. Cancer. 2006 Nov 15;107(10):2384-91 - PubMed
  40. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Mar;63(3):331-41 - PubMed
  41. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015 Feb 1;91(2):277-87 - PubMed
  42. BMJ. 1997 Sep 13;315(7109):629-34 - PubMed
  43. Stat Methods Med Res. 2018 Jun;27(6):1847-1859 - PubMed
  44. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Apr 10;14:163 - PubMed
  45. Breast Care (Basel). 2015 Apr;10(2):118-22 - PubMed
  46. Qual Health Care. 2001 Sep;10 Suppl 1:i39-43 - PubMed
  47. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Jul 15;83(4):1141-8 - PubMed
  48. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000 Jun 1;47(3):609-15 - PubMed
  49. Urol Oncol. 2012 Sep;30(5):584-9 - PubMed
  50. Stat Med. 1998 Dec 30;17(24):2815-34 - PubMed
  51. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017 Dec;35(Suppl 1):89-94 - PubMed
  52. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2014 Jun;11(6):299 - PubMed
  53. Int J Urol. 2013 Jul;20(7):714-5 - PubMed
  54. Transl Androl Urol. 2018 Apr;7(2):197-202 - PubMed
  55. Med Care. 2005 Apr;43(4):347-55 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types