Cargando…

Risk prediction models for esophageal cancer: A systematic review and critical appraisal

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Esophageal cancer risk prediction models allow for risk‐stratified endoscopic screening. We aimed to assess the quality of these models developed in the general population. METHODS: A systematic search of the PubMed and Embase databases from January 2000 through May 2021 was per...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, He, Sun, Dianqin, Cao, Maomao, He, Siyi, Zheng, Yadi, Yu, Xinyang, Wu, Zheng, Lei, Lin, Peng, Ji, Li, Jiang, Li, Ni, Chen, Wanqing
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8525074/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34414682
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.4226
_version_ 1784585615692529664
author Li, He
Sun, Dianqin
Cao, Maomao
He, Siyi
Zheng, Yadi
Yu, Xinyang
Wu, Zheng
Lei, Lin
Peng, Ji
Li, Jiang
Li, Ni
Chen, Wanqing
author_facet Li, He
Sun, Dianqin
Cao, Maomao
He, Siyi
Zheng, Yadi
Yu, Xinyang
Wu, Zheng
Lei, Lin
Peng, Ji
Li, Jiang
Li, Ni
Chen, Wanqing
author_sort Li, He
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Esophageal cancer risk prediction models allow for risk‐stratified endoscopic screening. We aimed to assess the quality of these models developed in the general population. METHODS: A systematic search of the PubMed and Embase databases from January 2000 through May 2021 was performed. Studies that developed or validated a model of esophageal cancer in the general population were included. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias (ROB) assessment by the Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) were performed independently by two reviewers. RESULTS: Of the 13 models included in the qualitative analysis, 8 were developed for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) and the other 5 were developed for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Only two models conducted external validation. In the ESCC models, cigarette smoking was included in each model, followed by age, sex, and alcohol consumption. For EAC models, cigarette smoking and body mass index were included in each model, and gastroesophageal reflux disease, uses of acid‐suppressant medicine, and nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drug were exclusively included. The discriminative performance was reported in all studies, with C statistics ranging from 0.71 to 0.88, whereas only six models reported calibration. For ROB, all the models had a low risk in participant and outcome, but all models showed high risk in analysis, and 60% of models showed a high risk in predictors, which resulted in all models being classified as having overall high ROB. For model applicability, about 60% of these models had an overall low risk, with 30% of models of high risk and 10% of models of unclear risk, concerning the assessment of participants, predictors, and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Most current risk prediction models of esophageal cancer have a high ROB. Prediction models need further improvement in their quality and applicability to benefit esophageal cancer screening.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8525074
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85250742021-10-26 Risk prediction models for esophageal cancer: A systematic review and critical appraisal Li, He Sun, Dianqin Cao, Maomao He, Siyi Zheng, Yadi Yu, Xinyang Wu, Zheng Lei, Lin Peng, Ji Li, Jiang Li, Ni Chen, Wanqing Cancer Med Cancer Prevention BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Esophageal cancer risk prediction models allow for risk‐stratified endoscopic screening. We aimed to assess the quality of these models developed in the general population. METHODS: A systematic search of the PubMed and Embase databases from January 2000 through May 2021 was performed. Studies that developed or validated a model of esophageal cancer in the general population were included. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias (ROB) assessment by the Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) were performed independently by two reviewers. RESULTS: Of the 13 models included in the qualitative analysis, 8 were developed for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) and the other 5 were developed for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Only two models conducted external validation. In the ESCC models, cigarette smoking was included in each model, followed by age, sex, and alcohol consumption. For EAC models, cigarette smoking and body mass index were included in each model, and gastroesophageal reflux disease, uses of acid‐suppressant medicine, and nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drug were exclusively included. The discriminative performance was reported in all studies, with C statistics ranging from 0.71 to 0.88, whereas only six models reported calibration. For ROB, all the models had a low risk in participant and outcome, but all models showed high risk in analysis, and 60% of models showed a high risk in predictors, which resulted in all models being classified as having overall high ROB. For model applicability, about 60% of these models had an overall low risk, with 30% of models of high risk and 10% of models of unclear risk, concerning the assessment of participants, predictors, and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Most current risk prediction models of esophageal cancer have a high ROB. Prediction models need further improvement in their quality and applicability to benefit esophageal cancer screening. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-08-20 /pmc/articles/PMC8525074/ /pubmed/34414682 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.4226 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Cancer Prevention
Li, He
Sun, Dianqin
Cao, Maomao
He, Siyi
Zheng, Yadi
Yu, Xinyang
Wu, Zheng
Lei, Lin
Peng, Ji
Li, Jiang
Li, Ni
Chen, Wanqing
Risk prediction models for esophageal cancer: A systematic review and critical appraisal
title Risk prediction models for esophageal cancer: A systematic review and critical appraisal
title_full Risk prediction models for esophageal cancer: A systematic review and critical appraisal
title_fullStr Risk prediction models for esophageal cancer: A systematic review and critical appraisal
title_full_unstemmed Risk prediction models for esophageal cancer: A systematic review and critical appraisal
title_short Risk prediction models for esophageal cancer: A systematic review and critical appraisal
title_sort risk prediction models for esophageal cancer: a systematic review and critical appraisal
topic Cancer Prevention
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8525074/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34414682
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.4226
work_keys_str_mv AT lihe riskpredictionmodelsforesophagealcancerasystematicreviewandcriticalappraisal
AT sundianqin riskpredictionmodelsforesophagealcancerasystematicreviewandcriticalappraisal
AT caomaomao riskpredictionmodelsforesophagealcancerasystematicreviewandcriticalappraisal
AT hesiyi riskpredictionmodelsforesophagealcancerasystematicreviewandcriticalappraisal
AT zhengyadi riskpredictionmodelsforesophagealcancerasystematicreviewandcriticalappraisal
AT yuxinyang riskpredictionmodelsforesophagealcancerasystematicreviewandcriticalappraisal
AT wuzheng riskpredictionmodelsforesophagealcancerasystematicreviewandcriticalappraisal
AT leilin riskpredictionmodelsforesophagealcancerasystematicreviewandcriticalappraisal
AT pengji riskpredictionmodelsforesophagealcancerasystematicreviewandcriticalappraisal
AT lijiang riskpredictionmodelsforesophagealcancerasystematicreviewandcriticalappraisal
AT lini riskpredictionmodelsforesophagealcancerasystematicreviewandcriticalappraisal
AT chenwanqing riskpredictionmodelsforesophagealcancerasystematicreviewandcriticalappraisal