Evaluating prognostic markers using relative utility curves and test tradeoffs

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Volumn 33, Issue 23, 2015, Pages 2578-2580

  Baker, Stuart G ^a   Kramer, Barnett S ^a  

^a NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADJUVANT CHEMOTHERAPY; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; BREAST DENSITY; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CANCER RESEARCH; CHEMOPROPHYLAXIS; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; DISEASE MARKER; FAMILY HISTORY; HUMAN; LUNG CANCER; MEDICAL HISTORY; MISCELLANEOUS NAMED GROUPS; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; REPRODUCTIVE HISTORY; RISK FACTOR; SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE POLYMORPHISM; TESTIS CANCER; TUMOR INVASION; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; INCIDENCE; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; NEOPLASMS; ODDS RATIO; PATHOLOGY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PROGNOSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL MODEL; TUMOR RECURRENCE;

TUMOR MARKER;

BIOMARKERS, TUMOR; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; MODELS, STATISTICAL; NEOPLASM RECURRENCE, LOCAL; NEOPLASMS; ODDS RATIO; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROGNOSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; ROC CURVE;

EID: 84940518398     PISSN: 0732183X     EISSN: 15277755     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2014.58.0092     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Sargent DJ, Mandrekar SJ: Statistical issues in the validation of prognostic, predictive, and surrogate biomarkers. Clin Trials 10:647-652, 2013
2. Sargent DJ, Conley BA, Allegra C, et al: Clinical trial designs for predictive marker validation in cancer treatment trials. J Clin Oncol 23:2020-2027, 2005
3. Italiano A: Prognostic or predictive? It's time to get back to definitions! J Clin Oncol 29:4718, 2011
4. Baker SG, Kramer BS, Sargent DJ, et al: Biomarkers, subgroup evaluation, and trial design. Disc Med 13:187-192, 2012
5. Mealiffe ME, Stokowski RP, Rhees BK, et al: Assessment of clinical validity of a breast cancer risk model combining genetic and clinical information. J Natl Cancer Inst 102:1618-1627, 2010
6. Baker SG, Van Calster B, Steyerberg EW: Evaluating a new marker for risk prediction using the test tradeoff: An update. Int J Biostat 22:8, 2012
7. Steyerberg EW, Vickers AJ, Cook NR, et al: Assessing the performance of prediction models: A framework for traditional and novel measures. Epidemiology 21:128-138, 2010
8. Baker SG: Putting risk prediction in perspective: Relative utility curves. J Natl Cancer Inst 101:1538-1542, 2009
9. Raji OY, Duffy SW, Agbaje OF, et al: Predictive accuracy of the liverpool lung project risk model for stratifying patients for computed tomography screening for lung cancer: A case-control and cohort validation study. Ann Intern Med 157:242-250, 2012
10. Collins GS, de Groot JA, Dutton S, et al: External validation of multivariable prediction models: A systematic review of methodological conduct and reporting. BMC Med Res Methodol 14:40, 2014
11. Schumacher M. Probability estimation and machine learning. Biom J 56:531-533, 2014
12. Spitz MR, Amos CI, D'Amelio A Jr, et al: Discriminatory accuracy from single-nucleotide polymorphisms in models to predict breast cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst 101:1731-1732, 2009
13. Tzoulaki I, Liberopoulos G, Ioannidis JP: Assessment of claims of improved prediction beyond the Framingham risk score. JAMA 302:2345-2352, 2009
14. Pepe MS, Janes H, Longton G, et al: Limitations of the odds ratio in gauging the performance of a diagnostic, prognostic, or screening marker. Am J Epidemiol 159:882-890, 2004
15. Leening MJ, Vedder MM, Witteman JC, et al: Net reclassification improvement: Computation, interpretation, and controversies: A literature review and clinician's guide. Ann Intern Med 160:122-131, 2014
16. Vickers AJ, Elkin EB: Decision curve analysis: A novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med Dec Making 26:565-574, 2006
17. Vickers AJ, Cronin AM, Elkin EB, et al: Extensions to decision curve analysis, a novel method for evaluating diagnostic tests, prediction models and molecular markers. BMC Med Inform Dec Mak 8:53, 2008
18. Baker SG, Schuit E, Steyerberg EW, et al: How to interpret a small increase in AUC with an additional risk prediction marker: Decision analysis comes through. Stat Med 33:3946-3959, 2014
19. Pauker SG, Kassirer JP: Therapeutic decision making: A cost-benefit analysis. N Engl J Med 293:229-234, 1975
20. National Cancer Institute: Evaluating risk prediction markers for binary outcomes via relative utility curves. http://prevention.cancer.gov/about-dcp/staff-search/stuart-g-baker-scd/evaluating-risk-prediction