Cargando…
Prognostic models for breast cancer: a systematic review
BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women worldwide, with a great diversity in outcomes among individual patients. The ability to accurately predict a breast cancer outcome is important to patients, physicians, researchers, and policy makers. Many models have been developed and te...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6419427/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30871490 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-019-5442-6 |
_version_ | 1783403943228866560 |
---|---|
author | Phung, Minh Tung Tin Tin, Sandar Elwood, J. Mark |
author_facet | Phung, Minh Tung Tin Tin, Sandar Elwood, J. Mark |
author_sort | Phung, Minh Tung |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women worldwide, with a great diversity in outcomes among individual patients. The ability to accurately predict a breast cancer outcome is important to patients, physicians, researchers, and policy makers. Many models have been developed and tested in different settings. We systematically reviewed the prognostic models developed and/or validated for patients with breast cancer. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search in four electronic databases and some oncology websites, and a manual search in the bibliographies of the included studies. We identified original studies that were published prior to 1st January 2017, and presented the development and/or validation of models based mainly on clinico-pathological factors to predict mortality and/or recurrence in female breast cancer patients. RESULTS: From the 96 articles selected from 4095 citations found, we identified 58 models, which predicted mortality (n = 28), recurrence (n = 23), or both (n = 7). The most frequently used predictors were nodal status (n = 49), tumour size (n = 42), tumour grade (n = 29), age at diagnosis (n = 24), and oestrogen receptor status (n = 21). Models were developed in Europe (n = 25), Asia (n = 13), North America (n = 12), and Australia (n = 1) between 1982 and 2016. Models were validated in the development cohorts (n = 43) and/or independent populations (n = 17), by comparing the predicted outcomes with the observed outcomes (n = 55) and/or with the outcomes estimated by other models (n = 32), or the outcomes estimated by individual prognostic factors (n = 8). The most commonly used methods were: Cox proportional hazards regression for model development (n = 32); the absolute differences between the predicted and observed outcomes (n = 30) for calibration; and C-index/AUC (n = 44) for discrimination. Overall, the models performed well in the development cohorts but less accurately in some independent populations, particularly in patients with high risk and young and elderly patients. An exception is the Nottingham Prognostic Index, which retains its predicting ability in most independent populations. CONCLUSIONS: Many prognostic models have been developed for breast cancer, but only a few have been validated widely in different settings. Importantly, their performance was suboptimal in independent populations, particularly in patients with high risk and in young and elderly patients. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-019-5442-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6419427 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-64194272019-03-27 Prognostic models for breast cancer: a systematic review Phung, Minh Tung Tin Tin, Sandar Elwood, J. Mark BMC Cancer Research Article BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women worldwide, with a great diversity in outcomes among individual patients. The ability to accurately predict a breast cancer outcome is important to patients, physicians, researchers, and policy makers. Many models have been developed and tested in different settings. We systematically reviewed the prognostic models developed and/or validated for patients with breast cancer. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search in four electronic databases and some oncology websites, and a manual search in the bibliographies of the included studies. We identified original studies that were published prior to 1st January 2017, and presented the development and/or validation of models based mainly on clinico-pathological factors to predict mortality and/or recurrence in female breast cancer patients. RESULTS: From the 96 articles selected from 4095 citations found, we identified 58 models, which predicted mortality (n = 28), recurrence (n = 23), or both (n = 7). The most frequently used predictors were nodal status (n = 49), tumour size (n = 42), tumour grade (n = 29), age at diagnosis (n = 24), and oestrogen receptor status (n = 21). Models were developed in Europe (n = 25), Asia (n = 13), North America (n = 12), and Australia (n = 1) between 1982 and 2016. Models were validated in the development cohorts (n = 43) and/or independent populations (n = 17), by comparing the predicted outcomes with the observed outcomes (n = 55) and/or with the outcomes estimated by other models (n = 32), or the outcomes estimated by individual prognostic factors (n = 8). The most commonly used methods were: Cox proportional hazards regression for model development (n = 32); the absolute differences between the predicted and observed outcomes (n = 30) for calibration; and C-index/AUC (n = 44) for discrimination. Overall, the models performed well in the development cohorts but less accurately in some independent populations, particularly in patients with high risk and young and elderly patients. An exception is the Nottingham Prognostic Index, which retains its predicting ability in most independent populations. CONCLUSIONS: Many prognostic models have been developed for breast cancer, but only a few have been validated widely in different settings. Importantly, their performance was suboptimal in independent populations, particularly in patients with high risk and in young and elderly patients. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-019-5442-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2019-03-14 /pmc/articles/PMC6419427/ /pubmed/30871490 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-019-5442-6 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Phung, Minh Tung Tin Tin, Sandar Elwood, J. Mark Prognostic models for breast cancer: a systematic review |
title | Prognostic models for breast cancer: a systematic review |
title_full | Prognostic models for breast cancer: a systematic review |
title_fullStr | Prognostic models for breast cancer: a systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | Prognostic models for breast cancer: a systematic review |
title_short | Prognostic models for breast cancer: a systematic review |
title_sort | prognostic models for breast cancer: a systematic review |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6419427/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30871490 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-019-5442-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT phungminhtung prognosticmodelsforbreastcancerasystematicreview AT tintinsandar prognosticmodelsforbreastcancerasystematicreview AT elwoodjmark prognosticmodelsforbreastcancerasystematicreview |