Comparison of Two Modern Survival Prediction Tools, SORG-MLA and METSSS, in Patients With Symptomatic Long-bone Metastases Who Underwent Local Treatment With Surgery Followed by Radiotherapy and With Radiotherapy Alone.
Survival estimation for patients with symptomatic skeletal metastases ideally should be made before a type of local treatment has already been determined. Currently available survival prediction tools, however, were generated using data from patients treated either operatively or with local radiation alone, raising concerns about whether they would generalize well to all patients presenting for assessment. The Skeletal Oncology Research Group machine-learning algorithm (SORG-MLA), trained with institution-based data of surgically treated patients, and the Metastases location, Elderly, Tumor primary, Sex, Sickness/comorbidity, and Site of radiotherapy model (METSSS), trained with registry-based data of patients treated with radiotherapy alone, are two of the most recently developed survival prediction models, but they have not been tested on patients whose local treatment strategy is not yet decided.
(1) Which of these two survival prediction models performed better in a mixed cohort made up both of patients who received local treatment with surgery followed by radiotherapy and who had radiation alone for symptomatic bone metastases? (2) Which model performed better among patients whose local treatment consisted of only palliative radiotherapy? (3) Are laboratory values used by SORG-MLA, which are not included in METSSS, independently associated with survival after controlling for predictions made by METSSS?
Between 2010 and 2018, we provided local treatment for 2113 adult patients with skeletal metastases in the extremities at an urban tertiary referral academic medical center using one of two strategies: (1) surgery followed by postoperative radiotherapy or (2) palliative radiotherapy alone. Every patient's survivorship status was ascertained either by their medical records or the national death registry from the Taiwanese National Health Insurance Administration. After applying a priori designated exclusion criteria, 91% (1920) were analyzed here. Among them, 48% (920) of the patients were female, and the median (IQR) age was 62 years (53 to 70 years). Lung was the most common primary tumor site (41% [782]), and 59% (1128) of patients had other skeletal metastases in addition to the treated lesion(s). In general, the indications for surgery were the presence of a complete pathologic fracture or an impending pathologic fracture, defined as having a Mirels score of ≥ 9, in patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification of less than or equal to IV and who were considered fit for surgery. The indications for radiotherapy were relief of pain, local tumor control, prevention of skeletal-related events, and any combination of the above. In all, 84% (1610) of the patients received palliative radiotherapy alone as local treatment for the target lesion(s), and 16% (310) underwent surgery followed by postoperative radiotherapy. Neither METSSS nor SORG-MLA was used at the point of care to aid clinical decision-making during the treatment period. Survival was retrospectively estimated by these two models to test their potential for providing survival probabilities. We first compared SORG to METSSS in the entire population. Then, we repeated the comparison in patients who received local treatment with palliative radiation alone. We assessed model performance by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), calibration analysis, Brier score, and decision curve analysis (DCA). The AUROC measures discrimination, which is the ability to distinguish patients with the event of interest (such as death at a particular time point) from those without. AUROC typically ranges from 0.5 to 1.0, with 0.5 indicating random guessing and 1.0 a perfect prediction, and in general, an AUROC of ≥ 0.7 indicates adequate discrimination for clinical use. Calibration refers to the agreement between the predicted outcomes (in this case, survival probabilities) and the actual outcomes, with a perfect calibration curve having an intercept of 0 and a slope of 1. A positive intercept indicates that the actual survival is generally underestimated by the prediction model, and a negative intercept suggests the opposite (overestimation). When comparing models, an intercept closer to 0 typically indicates better calibration. Calibration can also be summarized as log(O:E), the logarithm scale of the ratio of observed (O) to expected (E) survivors. A log(O:E) > 0 signals an underestimation (the observed survival is greater than the predicted survival); and a log(O:E) < 0 indicates the opposite (the observed survival is lower than the predicted survival). A model with a log(O:E) closer to 0 is generally considered better calibrated. The Brier score is the mean squared difference between the model predictions and the observed outcomes, and it ranges from 0 (best prediction) to 1 (worst prediction). The Brier score captures both discrimination and calibration, and it is considered a measure of overall model performance. In Brier score analysis, the "null model" assigns a predicted probability equal to the prevalence of the outcome and represents a model that adds no new information. A prediction model should achieve a Brier score at least lower than the null-model Brier score to be considered as useful. The DCA was developed as a method to determine whether using a model to inform treatment decisions would do more good than harm. It plots the net benefit of making decisions based on the model's predictions across all possible risk thresholds (or cost-to-benefit ratios) in relation to the two default strategies of treating all or no patients. The care provider can decide on an acceptable risk threshold for the proposed treatment in an individual and assess the corresponding net benefit to determine whether consulting with the model is superior to adopting the default strategies. Finally, we examined whether laboratory data, which were not included in the METSSS model, would have been independently associated with survival after controlling for the METSSS model's predictions by using the multivariable logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses.
Between the two models, only SORG-MLA achieved adequate discrimination (an AUROC of > 0.7) in the entire cohort (of patients treated operatively or with radiation alone) and in the subgroup of patients treated with palliative radiotherapy alone. SORG-MLA outperformed METSSS by a wide margin on discrimination, calibration, and Brier score analyses in not only the entire cohort but also the subgroup of patients whose local treatment consisted of radiotherapy alone. In both the entire cohort and the subgroup, DCA demonstrated that SORG-MLA provided more net benefit compared with the two default strategies (of treating all or no patients) and compared with METSSS when risk thresholds ranged from 0.2 to 0.9 at both 90 days and 1 year, indicating that using SORG-MLA as a decision-making aid was beneficial when a patient's individualized risk threshold for opting for treatment was 0.2 to 0.9. Higher albumin, lower alkaline phosphatase, lower calcium, higher hemoglobin, lower international normalized ratio, higher lymphocytes, lower neutrophils, lower neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, lower platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, higher sodium, and lower white blood cells were independently associated with better 1-year and overall survival after adjusting for the predictions made by METSSS.
Based on these discoveries, clinicians might choose to consult SORG-MLA instead of METSSS for survival estimation in patients with long-bone metastases presenting for evaluation of local treatment. Basing a treatment decision on the predictions of SORG-MLA could be beneficial when a patient's individualized risk threshold for opting to undergo a particular treatment strategy ranged from 0.2 to 0.9. Future studies might investigate relevant laboratory items when constructing or refining a survival estimation model because these data demonstrated prognostic value independent of the predictions of the METSSS model, and future studies might also seek to keep these models up to date using data from diverse, contemporary patients undergoing both modern operative and nonoperative treatments.
Level III, diagnostic study.
Lee CC
，Chen CW
，Yen HK
，Lin YP
，Lai CY
，Wang JL
，Groot OQ
，Janssen SJ
，Schwab JH
，Hsu FM
，Lin WH
... -
《-》
Effect of testing for cancer on cancer- or venous thromboembolism (VTE)-related mortality and morbidity in people with unprovoked VTE.
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a collective term for two conditions: deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). A proportion of people with VTE have no underlying or immediately predisposing risk factors and the VTE is referred to as unprovoked. Unprovoked VTE can often be the first clinical manifestation of an underlying malignancy. This has raised the question of whether people with an unprovoked VTE should be investigated for an underlying cancer. Treatment for VTE is different in cancer and non-cancer patients and a correct diagnosis would ensure that people received the optimal treatment for VTE to prevent recurrence and further morbidity. Furthermore, an appropriate cancer diagnosis at an earlier stage could avoid the risk of cancer progression and lead to improvements in cancer-related mortality and morbidity. This is the third update of the review first published in 2015.
To determine whether testing for undiagnosed cancer in people with a first episode of unprovoked VTE (DVT of the lower limb or PE) is effective in reducing cancer- or VTE-related mortality and morbidity and to determine which tests for cancer are best at identifying treatable cancers early.
The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 5 May 2021. We also undertook reference checking to identify additional studies.
Randomised and quasi-randomised trials in which people with an unprovoked VTE were allocated to receive specific tests for identifying cancer or clinically indicated tests only were eligible for inclusion.
Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE criteria. We resolved any disagreements by discussion. The main outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, cancer-related mortality and VTE-related mortality.
No new studies were identified for this 2021 update. In total, four studies with 1644 participants are included. Two studies assessed the effect of extensive tests including computed tomography (CT) scanning versus tests at the physician's discretion, while the other two studies assessed the effect of standard testing plus positron emission tomography (PET)/CT scanning versus standard testing alone. For extensive tests including CT versus tests at the physician's discretion, the certainty of the evidence, as assessed according to GRADE, was low due to risk of bias (early termination of the studies). When comparing standard testing plus PET/CT scanning versus standard testing alone, the certainty of evidence was moderate due to a risk of detection bias. The certainty of the evidence was downgraded further as detection bias was present in one study with a low number of events. When comparing extensive tests including CT versus tests at the physician's discretion, pooled analysis on two studies showed that testing for cancer was consistent with either benefit or no benefit on cancer-related mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 1.67; 396 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). One study (201 participants) showed that, overall, malignancies were less advanced at diagnosis in extensively tested participants than in participants in the control group. In total, 9/13 participants diagnosed with cancer in the extensively tested group had a T1 or T2 stage malignancy compared to 2/10 participants diagnosed with cancer in the control group (OR 5.00, 95% CI 1.05 to 23.76; low-certainty evidence). There was no clear difference in detection of advanced stages between extensive tests versus tests at the physician's discretion: one participant in the extensively tested group had stage T3 compared with four participants in the control group (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.28; low-certainty evidence). In addition, extensively tested participants were diagnosed earlier than control group (mean: 1 month with extensive tests versus 11.6 months with tests at physician's discretion to cancer diagnosis from the time of diagnosis of VTE). Extensive testing did not increase the frequency of an underlying cancer diagnosis (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.93; 396 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). Neither study measured all-cause mortality, VTE-related morbidity and mortality, complications of anticoagulation, adverse effects of cancer tests, participant satisfaction or quality of life. When comparing standard testing plus PET/CT screening versus standard testing alone, standard testing plus PET/CT screening was consistent with either benefit or no benefit on all-cause mortality (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.49 to 3.04; 1248 participants; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), cancer-related mortality (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.52; 1248 participants; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) or VTE-related morbidity (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.17; 854 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). Regarding stage of cancer, there was no clear difference for detection of early (OR 1.78, 95% 0.51 to 6.17; 394 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence) or advanced (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.14 to 7.17; 394 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence) stages of cancer. There was also no clear difference in the frequency of an underlying cancer diagnosis (OR 1.71, 95% CI 0.91 to 3.20; 1248 participants; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Time to cancer diagnosis was 4.2 months in the standard testing group and 4.0 months in the standard testing plus PET/CT group (P = 0.88). Neither study measured VTE-related mortality, complications of anticoagulation, adverse effects of cancer tests, participant satisfaction or quality of life.
Specific testing for cancer in people with unprovoked VTE may lead to earlier diagnosis of cancer at an earlier stage of the disease. However, there is currently insufficient evidence to draw definitive conclusions concerning the effectiveness of testing for undiagnosed cancer in people with a first episode of unprovoked VTE (DVT or PE) in reducing cancer- or VTE-related morbidity and mortality. The results could be consistent with either benefit or no benefit. Further good-quality large-scale randomised controlled trials are required before firm conclusions can be made.
Robertson L
，Broderick C
，Yeoh SE
，Stansby G
... -
《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
