» Articles » PMID: 30241973

Reporting and Interpreting Decision Curve Analysis: A Guide for Investigators

Overview
Journal Eur Urol
Specialty Urology
Date 2018 Sep 23
PMID 30241973
Citations 481
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Context: Urologists regularly develop clinical risk prediction models to support clinical decisions. In contrast to traditional performance measures, decision curve analysis (DCA) can assess the utility of models for decision making. DCA plots net benefit (NB) at a range of clinically reasonable risk thresholds.

Objective: To provide recommendations on interpreting and reporting DCA when evaluating prediction models.

Evidence Acquisition: We informally reviewed the urological literature to determine investigators' understanding of DCA. To illustrate, we use data from 3616 patients to develop risk models for high-grade prostate cancer (n=313, 9%) to decide who should undergo a biopsy. The baseline model includes prostate-specific antigen and digital rectal examination; the extended model adds two predictors based on transrectal ultrasound (TRUS).

Evidence Synthesis: We explain risk thresholds, NB, default strategies (treat all, treat no one), and test tradeoff. To use DCA, first determine whether a model is superior to all other strategies across the range of reasonable risk thresholds. If so, that model appears to improve decisions irrespective of threshold. Second, consider if there are important extra costs to using the model. If so, obtain the test tradeoff to check whether the increase in NB versus the best other strategy is worth the additional cost. In our case study, addition of TRUS improved NB by 0.0114, equivalent to 1.1 more detected high-grade prostate cancers per 100 patients. Hence, adding TRUS would be worthwhile if we accept subjecting 88 patients to TRUS to find one additional high-grade prostate cancer or, alternatively, subjecting 10 patients to TRUS to avoid one unnecessary biopsy.

Conclusions: The proposed guidelines can help researchers understand DCA and improve application and reporting.

Patient Summary: Decision curve analysis can identify risk models that can help us make better clinical decisions. We illustrate appropriate reporting and interpretation of decision curve analysis.

Citing Articles

Integration of intratumoral and peritumoral CT radiomic features with machine learning algorithms for predicting induction therapy response in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Cai F, Guo Z, Wang G, Luo F, Yang Y, Lv M BMC Cancer. 2025; 25(1):461.

PMID: 40082786 PMC: 11907900. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-025-13804-x.


Multi-omics analysis revealed the novel role of NQO1 in microenvironment, prognosis and immunotherapy of hepatocellular carcinoma.

Tang Y, Hu H, Chen S, Hao B, Xu X, Zhu H Sci Rep. 2025; 15(1):8591.

PMID: 40074806 PMC: 11903666. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-92700-7.


Nomograms of risk prediction and prognosis for the T1-T2 stage gastric cancer with lymph node metastasis: a population-based study.

Nie G, Geng L, Zhang H, Chu S, Jiang H Front Med (Lausanne). 2025; 12:1492041.

PMID: 40070650 PMC: 11893835. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2025.1492041.


Prognostic significance and immune microenvironment infiltration patterns of hypoxia and endoplasmic reticulum stress-related genes in gastric cancer.

Li L, Liang Y, Xu W Front Oncol. 2025; 15:1542740.

PMID: 40061897 PMC: 11885130. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2025.1542740.


Serum-biomarker-based population screening model for hepatocellular carcinoma.

Liao W, Lin W, He Z, Feng C, Liu Y, Wang Z iScience. 2025; 28(3):111981.

PMID: 40060905 PMC: 11889663. DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2025.111981.


References
1.
Russell Localio A, Goodman S . Beyond the usual prediction accuracy metrics: reporting results for clinical decision making. Ann Intern Med. 2012; 157(4):294-5. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-157-4-201208210-00014. View

2.
Olchanski N, Cohen J, Neumann P, Wong J, Kent D . Understanding the Value of Individualized Information: The Impact of Poor Calibration or Discrimination in Outcome Prediction Models. Med Decis Making. 2017; 37(7):790-801. PMC: 5577366. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X17704855. View

3.
Roobol M, van Vugt H, Loeb S, Zhu X, Bul M, Bangma C . Prediction of prostate cancer risk: the role of prostate volume and digital rectal examination in the ERSPC risk calculators. Eur Urol. 2011; 61(3):577-83. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.11.012. View

4.
Balachandran V, Gonen M, Smith J, DeMatteo R . Nomograms in oncology: more than meets the eye. Lancet Oncol. 2015; 16(4):e173-80. PMC: 4465353. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)71116-7. View

5.
Van Calster B, Nieboer D, Vergouwe Y, De Cock B, Pencina M, Steyerberg E . A calibration hierarchy for risk models was defined: from utopia to empirical data. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016; 74:167-76. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.12.005. View