The comparative and added prognostic value of biomarkers to the Revised Cardiac Risk Index for preoperative prediction of major adverse cardiac events and all-cause mortality in patients who undergo noncardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: The Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI) is a widely acknowledged prognostic model to estimate preoperatively the probability of developing in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. However, the RCRI does not always make accurate predictions, so various studies have investigated whether biomarkers added to or compared with the RCRI could improve this. OBJECTIVES: Primary: To investigate the added predictive value of biomarkers to the RCRI to preoperatively predict in-hospital MACE and other adverse outcomes in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Secondary: To investigate the prognostic value of biomarkers compared to the RCRI to preoperatively predict in-hospital MACE and other adverse outcomes in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Tertiary: To investigate the prognostic value of other prediction models compared to the RCRI to preoperatively predict in-hospital MACE and other adverse outcomes in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and Embase from 1 January 1999 (the year that the RCRI was published) until 25 June 2020. We also searched ISI Web of Science and SCOPUS for articles referring to the original RCRI development study in that period. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies among adults who underwent noncardiac surgery, reporting on (external) validation of the RCRI and: - the addition of biomarker(s) to the RCRI; or - the comparison of the predictive accuracy of biomarker(s) to the RCRI; or - the comparison of the predictive accuracy of the RCRI to other models. Besides MACE, all other adverse outcomes were considered for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We developed a data extraction form based on the CHARMS checklist. Independent pairs of authors screened references, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and concerns regarding applicability according to PROBAST. For biomarkers and prediction models that were added or compared to the RCRI in ≥ 3 different articles, we described study characteristics and findings in further detail. We did not apply GRADE as no guidance is available for prognostic model reviews. MAIN RESULTS: We screened 3960 records and included 107 articles.   Over all objectives we rated risk of bias as high in ≥ 1 domain in 90% of included studies, particularly in the analysis domain. Statistical pooling or meta-analysis of reported results was impossible due to heterogeneity in various aspects: outcomes used, scale by which the biomarker was added/compared to the RCRI, prediction horizons and studied populations.  Added predictive value of biomarkers to the RCRI Fifty-one studies reported on the added value of biomarkers to the RCRI. Sixty-nine different predictors were identified derived from blood (29%), imaging (33%) or other sources (38%). Addition of NT-proBNP, troponin or their combination improved the RCRI for predicting MACE (median delta c-statistics: 0.08, 0.14 and 0.12 for NT-proBNP, troponin and their combination, respectively). The median total net reclassification index (NRI) was 0.16 and 0.74 after addition of troponin and NT-proBNP to the RCRI, respectively. Calibration was not reported. To predict myocardial infarction, the median delta c-statistic when NT-proBNP was added to the RCRI was 0.09, and 0.06 for prediction of all-cause mortality and MACE combined. For BNP and copeptin, data were not sufficient to provide results on their added predictive performance, for any of the outcomes. Comparison of the predictive value of biomarkers to the RCRI  Fifty-one studies assessed the predictive performance of biomarkers alone compared to the RCRI. We identified 60 unique predictors derived from blood (38%), imaging (30%) or other sources, such as the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification (32%). Predictions were similar between the ASA classification and the RCRI for all studied outcomes. In studies different from those identified in objective 1, the median delta c-statistic was 0.15 and 0.12 in favour of  BNP and NT-proBNP alone, respectively, when compared to the RCRI, for the prediction of MACE. For C-reactive protein, the predictive performance was similar to the RCRI. For other biomarkers and outcomes, data were insufficient to provide summary results. One study reported on calibration and none on reclassification. Comparison of the predictive value of other prognostic models to the RCRI   Fifty-two articles compared the predictive ability of the RCRI to other prognostic models. Of these, 42% developed a new prediction model, 22% updated the RCRI, or another prediction model, and 37% validated an existing prediction model. None of the other prediction models showed better performance in predicting MACE than the RCRI. To predict myocardial infarction and cardiac arrest, ACS-NSQIP-MICA had a higher median delta c-statistic of 0.11 compared to the RCRI. To predict all-cause mortality, the median delta c-statistic was 0.15 higher in favour of ACS-NSQIP-SRS compared to the RCRI. Predictive performance was not better for CHADS2, CHA2DS2-VASc, R2CHADS2, Goldman index, Detsky index or VSG-CRI compared to the RCRI for any of the outcomes. Calibration and reclassification were reported in only one and three studies, respectively. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Studies included in this review suggest that the predictive performance of the RCRI in predicting MACE is improved when NT-proBNP, troponin or their combination are added. Other studies indicate that BNP and NT-proBNP, when used in isolation, may even have a higher discriminative performance than the RCRI. There was insufficient evidence of a difference between the predictive accuracy of the RCRI and other prediction models in predicting MACE. However, ACS-NSQIP-MICA and ACS-NSQIP-SRS outperformed the RCRI in predicting myocardial infarction and cardiac arrest combined, and all-cause mortality, respectively. Nevertheless, the results cannot be interpreted as conclusive due to high risks of bias in a majority of papers, and pooling was impossible due to heterogeneity in outcomes, prediction horizons, biomarkers and studied populations. Future research on the added prognostic value of biomarkers to existing prediction models should focus on biomarkers with good predictive accuracy in other settings (e.g. diagnosis of myocardial infarction) and identification of biomarkers from omics data. They should be compared to novel biomarkers with so far insufficient evidence compared to established ones, including NT-proBNP or troponins. Adherence to recent guidance for prediction model studies (e.g. TRIPOD; PROBAST) and use of standardised outcome definitions in primary studies is highly recommended to facilitate systematic review and meta-analyses in the future.

Prognostic models for newly-diagnosed chronic lymphocytic leukaemia in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) is the most common cancer of the lymphatic system in Western countries. Several clinical and biological factors for CLL have been identified. However, it remains unclear which of the available prognostic models combining those factors can be used in clinical practice to predict long-term outcome in people newly-diagnosed with CLL. OBJECTIVES: To identify, describe and appraise all prognostic models developed to predict overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) or treatment-free survival (TFS) in newly-diagnosed (previously untreated) adults with CLL, and meta-analyse their predictive performances. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (from January 1950 to June 2019 via Ovid), Embase (from 1974 to June 2019) and registries of ongoing trials (to 5 March 2020) for development and validation studies of prognostic models for untreated adults with CLL. In addition, we screened the reference lists and citation indices of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all prognostic models developed for CLL which predict OS, PFS, or TFS, provided they combined prognostic factors known before treatment initiation, and any studies that tested the performance of these models in individuals other than the ones included in model development (i.e. 'external model validation studies'). We included studies of adults with confirmed B-cell CLL who had not received treatment prior to the start of the study. We did not restrict the search based on study design. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We developed a data extraction form to collect information based on the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS). Independent pairs of review authors screened references, extracted data and assessed risk of bias according to the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). For models that were externally validated at least three times, we aimed to perform a quantitative meta-analysis of their predictive performance, notably their calibration (proportion of people predicted to experience the outcome who do so) and discrimination (ability to differentiate between people with and without the event) using a random-effects model. When a model categorised individuals into risk categories, we pooled outcome frequencies per risk group (low, intermediate, high and very high). We did not apply GRADE as guidance is not yet available for reviews of prognostic models. MAIN RESULTS: From 52 eligible studies, we identified 12 externally validated models: six were developed for OS, one for PFS and five for TFS. In general, reporting of the studies was poor, especially predictive performance measures for calibration and discrimination; but also basic information, such as eligibility criteria and the recruitment period of participants was often missing. We rated almost all studies at high or unclear risk of bias according to PROBAST. Overall, the applicability of the models and their validation studies was low or unclear; the most common reasons were inappropriate handling of missing data and serious reporting deficiencies concerning eligibility criteria, recruitment period, observation time and prediction performance measures. We report the results for three models predicting OS, which had available data from more than three external validation studies: CLL International Prognostic Index (CLL-IPI) This score includes five prognostic factors: age, clinical stage, IgHV mutational status, B2-microglobulin and TP53 status. Calibration: for the low-, intermediate- and high-risk groups, the pooled five-year survival per risk group from validation studies corresponded to the frequencies observed in the model development study. In the very high-risk group, predicted survival from CLL-IPI was lower than observed from external validation studies. Discrimination: the pooled c-statistic of seven external validation studies (3307 participants, 917 events) was 0.72 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 0.77). The 95% prediction interval (PI) of this model for the c-statistic, which describes the expected interval for the model's discriminative ability in a new external validation study, ranged from 0.59 to 0.83. Barcelona-Brno score Aimed at simplifying the CLL-IPI, this score includes three prognostic factors: IgHV mutational status, del(17p) and del(11q). Calibration: for the low- and intermediate-risk group, the pooled survival per risk group corresponded to the frequencies observed in the model development study, although the score seems to overestimate survival for the high-risk group. Discrimination: the pooled c-statistic of four external validation studies (1755 participants, 416 events) was 0.64 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.67); 95% PI 0.59 to 0.68. MDACC 2007 index score The authors presented two versions of this model including six prognostic factors to predict OS: age, B2-microglobulin, absolute lymphocyte count, gender, clinical stage and number of nodal groups. Only one validation study was available for the more comprehensive version of the model, a formula with a nomogram, while seven studies (5127 participants, 994 events) validated the simplified version of the model, the index score. Calibration: for the low- and intermediate-risk groups, the pooled survival per risk group corresponded to the frequencies observed in the model development study, although the score seems to overestimate survival for the high-risk group. Discrimination: the pooled c-statistic of the seven external validation studies for the index score was 0.65 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.70); 95% PI 0.51 to 0.77. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite the large number of published studies of prognostic models for OS, PFS or TFS for newly-diagnosed, untreated adults with CLL, only a minority of these (N = 12) have been externally validated for their respective primary outcome. Three models have undergone sufficient external validation to enable meta-analysis of the model's ability to predict survival outcomes. Lack of reporting prevented us from summarising calibration as recommended. Of the three models, the CLL-IPI shows the best discrimination, despite overestimation. However, performance of the models may change for individuals with CLL who receive improved treatment options, as the models included in this review were tested mostly on retrospective cohorts receiving a traditional treatment regimen. In conclusion, this review shows a clear need to improve the conducting and reporting of both prognostic model development and external validation studies. For prognostic models to be used as tools in clinical practice, the development of the models (and their subsequent validation studies) should adapt to include the latest therapy options to accurately predict performance. Adaptations should be timely.