» Articles » PMID: 20353578

Reporting Methods in Studies Developing Prognostic Models in Cancer: a Review

Overview
Journal BMC Med
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2010 Apr 1
PMID 20353578
Citations 88
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Development of prognostic models enables identification of variables that are influential in predicting patient outcome and the use of these multiple risk factors in a systematic, reproducible way according to evidence based methods. The reliability of models depends on informed use of statistical methods, in combination with prior knowledge of disease. We reviewed published articles to assess reporting and methods used to develop new prognostic models in cancer.

Methods: We developed a systematic search string and identified articles from PubMed. Forty-seven articles were included that satisfied the following inclusion criteria: published in 2005; aiming to predict patient outcome; presenting new prognostic models in cancer with outcome time to an event and including a combination of at least two separate variables; and analysing data using multivariable analysis suitable for time to event data.

Results: In 47 studies, prospective cohort or randomised controlled trial data were used for model development in only 33% (15) of studies. In 30% (14) of the studies insufficient data were available, having fewer than 10 events per variable (EPV) used in model development. EPV could not be calculated in a further 40% (19) of the studies. The coding of candidate variables was only reported in 68% (32) of the studies. Although use of continuous variables was reported in all studies, only one article reported using recommended methods of retaining all these variables as continuous without categorisation. Statistical methods for selection of variables in the multivariate modelling were often flawed. A method that is not recommended, namely, using statistical significance in univariate analysis as a pre-screening test to select variables for inclusion in the multivariate model, was applied in 48% (21) of the studies.

Conclusions: We found that published prognostic models are often characterised by both use of inappropriate methods for development of multivariable models and poor reporting. In addition, models are limited by the lack of studies based on prospective data of sufficient sample size to avoid overfitting. The use of poor methods compromises the reliability of prognostic models developed to provide objective probability estimates to complement clinical intuition of the physician and guidelines.

Citing Articles

The reporting quality and methodological quality of dynamic prediction models for cancer prognosis.

Yan P, Xu Z, Hui X, Chu X, Chen Y, Yang C BMC Med Res Methodol. 2025; 25(1):58.

PMID: 40025462 PMC: 11872325. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-025-02516-2.


Evaluating variable selection methods for multivariable regression models: A simulation study protocol.

Ullmann T, Heinze G, Hafermann L, Schilhart-Wallisch C, Dunkler D PLoS One. 2024; 19(8):e0308543.

PMID: 39121055 PMC: 11315300. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0308543.


Practical guide to building machine learning-based clinical prediction models using imbalanced datasets.

Luu J, Borisenko E, Przekop V, Patil A, Forrester J, Choi J Trauma Surg Acute Care Open. 2024; 9(1):e001222.

PMID: 38881829 PMC: 11177772. DOI: 10.1136/tsaco-2023-001222.


TRIPOD+AI statement: updated guidance for reporting clinical prediction models that use regression or machine learning methods.

Collins G, Moons K, Dhiman P, Riley R, Beam A, Van Calster B BMJ. 2024; 385:e078378.

PMID: 38626948 PMC: 11019967. DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2023-078378.


Models to predict length of stay in the emergency department: a systematic literature review and appraisal.

Farimani R, Karim H, Atashi A, Tohidinezhad F, Bahaadini K, Abu-Hanna A BMC Emerg Med. 2024; 24(1):54.

PMID: 38575857 PMC: 10996208. DOI: 10.1186/s12873-024-00965-4.


References
1.
Peccatori J, Barkholt L, Demirer T, Sormani M, Bruzzi P, Ciceri F . Prognostic factors for survival in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma undergoing nonmyeloablative allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Cancer. 2005; 104(10):2099-103. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.21477. View

2.
Lin Y, Chen S, Chang H, Hsueh S, Tsai C, Lo Y . Identifying good prognosis group of breast cancer patients with 1-3 positive axillary nodes for adjuvant cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil (CMF) chemotherapy. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2005; 35(9):514-9. DOI: 10.1093/jjco/hyi143. View

3.
Breems D, van Putten W, Huijgens P, Ossenkoppele G, Verhoef G, Verdonck L . Prognostic index for adult patients with acute myeloid leukemia in first relapse. J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23(9):1969-78. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.06.027. View

4.
Jerez J, Franco L, Alba E, Llombart-Cussac A, Lluch A, Ribelles N . Improvement of breast cancer relapse prediction in high risk intervals using artificial neural networks. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2005; 94(3):265-72. DOI: 10.1007/s10549-005-9013-y. View

5.
Shulman M, Benaim E . Prognostic model of event-free survival for patients with androgen-independent prostate carcinoma. Cancer. 2005; 103(11):2280-6. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.21054. View