External Validation of the DynPG for Kidney Transplant Recipients.

BACKGROUND: In kidney transplantation, dynamic prediction of patient and kidney graft survival (DynPG) may help to promote therapeutic alliance by delivering personalized evidence-based information about long-term graft survival for kidney transplant recipients. The objective of the current study is to externally validate the DynPG. METHODS: Based on 6 baseline variables, the DynPG can be updated with any new serum creatinine measure available during the follow-up. From an external validation sample of 1637 kidney recipients with a functioning graft at 1-year posttransplantation from 2 European transplantation centers, we assessed the prognostic performance of the DynPG. RESULTS: As one can expect from an external validation sample, differences in several recipient, donor, and transplantation characteristics compared with the learning sample were observed. Patients were mainly transplanted from deceased donors (91.6% versus 84.8%; P < 0.01), were less immunized against HLA class I (18.4% versus 32.7%; P < 0.01) and presented less comorbidities (62.2% for hypertension versus 82.7%, P < 0.01; 25.1% for cardiovascular disease versus 33.9%, P < 0.01). Despite these noteworthy differences, the area under the ROC curve varied from 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-0.76) to 0.76 (95% CI, 0.64-0.88) for prediction times at 1 and 6 years posttransplantation respectively, and calibration plots revealed reasonably accurate predictions. CONCLUSIONS: We validated the prognostic capacities of the DynPG in terms of both discrimination and calibration. Our study showed the robustness of the DynPG for informing both the patient and the physician, and its transportability for a cohort presenting different features than the one used for the DynPG development.

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).

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.

Inverse probability weighting to control confounding in an illness-death model for interval-censored data.

Multistate models with interval-censored data, such as the illness-death model, are still not used to any considerable extent in medical research regardless of the significant literature demonstrating their advantages compared to usual survival models. Possible explanations are their uncommon availability in classical statistical software or, when they are available, by the limitations related to multivariable modelling to take confounding into consideration. In this paper, we propose a strategy based on propensity scores that allows population causal effects to be estimated: the inverse probability weighting in the illness semi-Markov model with interval-censored data. Using simulated data, we validated the performances of the proposed approach. We also illustrated the usefulness of the method by an application aiming to evaluate the relationship between the inadequate size of an aortic bioprosthesis and its degeneration or/and patient death. We have updated the R package multistate to facilitate the future use of this method.

A multistate additive relative survival semi-Markov model.

Medical researchers are often interested to investigate the relationship between explicative variables and times-to-events such as disease progression or death. Such multiple times-to-events can be studied using multistate models. For chronic diseases, it may be relevant to consider semi-Markov multistate models because the transition intensities between two clinical states more likely depend on the time already spent in the current state than on the chronological time. When the cause of death for a patient is unavailable or not totally attributable to the disease, it is not possible to specifically study the associations with the excess mortality related to the disease. Relative survival analysis allows an estimate of the net survival in the hypothetical situation where the disease would be the only possible cause of death. In this paper, we propose a semi-Markov additive relative survival (SMRS) model that combines the multistate and the relative survival approaches. The usefulness of the SMRS model is illustrated by two applications with data from a French cohort of kidney transplant recipients. Using simulated data, we also highlight the effectiveness of the SMRS model: the results tend to those obtained if the different causes of death are known.