Validating risk prediction models for multiple primaries and competing cancer outcomes in families with Li-Fraumeni syndrome using clinically ascertained data at a single institute
Nguyen, N. H.; Dodd-Eaton, E. B.; Corredor, J. L.; Woodman-Ross, J.; Green, S.; Hernandez, N. D.; Gutierrez-Barrera, A. M.; Arun, B. K.; Wang, W.
Show abstract
PurposeThere exists a barrier between developing and disseminating risk prediction models in clinical settings. We hypothesize this barrier may be lifted by demonstrating the utility of these models using incomplete data that are collected in real clinical sessions, as compared to the commonly used research cohorts that are meticulously collected. Patients and methodsGenetic counselors (GCs) collect family history when patients (i.e., probands) come to MD Anderson Cancer Center for risk assessment of Li-Fraumeni syndrome, a genetic disorder characterized by deleterious germline mutations in the TP53 gene. Our clinical counseling-based (CCB) cohort consists of 3,297 individuals across 124 families (522 cases of single primary cancer and 125 cases of multiple primary cancers). We applied our software suite LFSPRO to make risk predictions and assessed performance in discrimination using area under the curve (AUC), and in calibration using observed/expected (O/E) ratio. ResultsFor prediction of deleterious TP53 mutations, we achieved an AUC of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.70 - 0.91) and an O/E ratio of 0.96 (95% CI, 0.70 - 1.21). Using the LFSPRO.MPC model to predict the onset of the second cancer, we obtained an AUC of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.58 - 0.82). Using the LFSPRO.CS model to predict the onset of different cancer types as the first primary, we achieved AUCs between 0.70 and 0.83 for sarcoma, breast cancer, or other cancers combined. ConclusionWe describe a study that fills in the critical gap in knowledge for the utility of risk prediction models. Using a CCB cohort, our previously validated models have demonstrated good performance and outperformed the standard clinical criteria. Our study suggests better risk counseling may be achieved by GCs using these already-developed mathematical models.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Simple Linear Cancer Risk Prediction Models with Novel Features Outperform Complex Approaches 94%
- Machine learning and mechanistic modeling for prediction of metastatic relapse in breast cancer 93%
- Towards Predicting 30-Day Readmission among Oncology Patients: Identifying Timely and Actionable Risk Factors 92%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Artificial intelligence-based histopathology image analysis identifies a novel subset of endometrial cancers with distinct genomic features and unfavourable outcome 93%
- The Impact of Digital Histopathology Batch Effect on Deep Learning Model Accuracy and Bias 93%
- Assessment of Polygenic Architecture and Risk Prediction based on Common Variants Across Fourteen Cancers 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.