Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Accommodating heterogeneous missing data patterns for prostate cancer risk prediction.
Neumair, Matthias; Kattan, Michael W; Freedland, Stephen J; Haese, Alexander; Guerrios-Rivera, Lourdes; De Hoedt, Amanda M; Liss, Michael A; Leach, Robin J; Boorjian, Stephen A; Cooperberg, Matthew R; Poyet, Cedric; Saba, Karim; Herkommer, Kathleen; Meissner, Valentin H; Vickers, Andrew J; Ankerst, Donna P.
Afiliación
  • Neumair M; Department of Life Sciences, Technical University of Munich, Freising, Germany. m.neumair@tum.de.
  • Kattan MW; Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, USA.
  • Freedland SJ; Section of Urology, Durham Veterans Administration Health Care System, Durham, NC, USA.
  • Haese A; Department of Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
  • Guerrios-Rivera L; Martini-Clinic Prostate Cancer Center, University Clinic Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
  • De Hoedt AM; Department of Surgery, Urology Section, Veterans Affairs Caribbean Healthcare System, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
  • Liss MA; Section of Urology, Durham Veterans Administration Health Care System, Durham, NC, USA.
  • Leach RJ; Department of Urology, University of Texas Health at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA.
  • Boorjian SA; Department of Cell Systems and Anatomy, University of Texas Health at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA.
  • Cooperberg MR; Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
  • Poyet C; Departments of Urology and Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
  • Saba K; Department of Urology, University Hospital of Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
  • Herkommer K; Department of Urology, University Hospital of Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
  • Meissner VH; Urology Centre, Hirslanden Klinik Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland.
  • Vickers AJ; Department of Urology, University Hospital, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
  • Ankerst DP; Department of Urology, University Hospital, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
BMC Med Res Methodol ; 22(1): 200, 2022 07 21.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35864460
BACKGROUND: We compared six commonly used logistic regression methods for accommodating missing risk factor data from multiple heterogeneous cohorts, in which some cohorts do not collect some risk factors at all, and developed an online risk prediction tool that accommodates missing risk factors from the end-user. METHODS: Ten North American and European cohorts from the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group (PBCG) were used for fitting a risk prediction tool for clinically significant prostate cancer, defined as Gleason grade group ≥ 2 on standard TRUS prostate biopsy. One large European PBCG cohort was withheld for external validation, where calibration-in-the-large (CIL), calibration curves, and area-underneath-the-receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) were evaluated. Ten-fold leave-one-cohort-internal validation further validated the optimal missing data approach. RESULTS: Among 12,703 biopsies from 10 training cohorts, 3,597 (28%) had clinically significant prostate cancer, compared to 1,757 of 5,540 (32%) in the external validation cohort. In external validation, the available cases method that pooled individual patient data containing all risk factors input by an end-user had best CIL, under-predicting risks as percentages by 2.9% on average, and obtained an AUC of 75.7%. Imputation had the worst CIL (-13.3%). The available cases method was further validated as optimal in internal cross-validation and thus used for development of an online risk tool. For end-users of the risk tool, two risk factors were mandatory: serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and age, and ten were optional: digital rectal exam, prostate volume, prior negative biopsy, 5-alpha-reductase-inhibitor use, prior PSA screen, African ancestry, Hispanic ethnicity, first-degree prostate-, breast-, and second-degree prostate-cancer family history. CONCLUSION: Developers of clinical risk prediction tools should optimize use of available data and sources even in the presence of high amounts of missing data and offer options for users with missing risk factors.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Neoplasias de la Próstata Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Etiology_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Límite: Humans / Male Idioma: En Revista: BMC Med Res Methodol Asunto de la revista: MEDICINA Año: 2022 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Alemania

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Neoplasias de la Próstata Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Etiology_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Límite: Humans / Male Idioma: En Revista: BMC Med Res Methodol Asunto de la revista: MEDICINA Año: 2022 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Alemania
...