Evaluating methodological quality of Prognostic models Including Patient-reported HeAlth outcomes in oncologY (EPIPHANY): A systematic review protocol

Introduction While there is mounting evidence of the independent prognostic value of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for overall survival (OS) in patients with cancer, it is known that the conduct of these studies may hold a number of methodological challenges. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the quality of published studies in this research area, in order to identify methodological and statistical issues deserving special attention and to also possibly provide evidence-based recommendations. Methods and analysis An electronic search strategy will be performed in PubMed to identify studies developing or validating a prognostic model which includes PROs as predictors. Two reviewers will independently be involved in data collection using a predefined and standardised data extraction form including information related to study characteristics, PROs measures used and multivariable prognostic models. Studies selection will be reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, with data extraction form using fields from the Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS) checklist for multivariable models. Methodological quality assessment will also be performed and will be based on prespecified domains of the CHARMS checklist. As a substantial heterogeneity of included studies is expected, a narrative evidence synthesis will also be provided. Ethics and dissemination Given that this systematic review will use only published data, ethical permissions will not be required. Findings from this review will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and presented at major international conferences. We anticipate that this review will contribute to identify key areas of improvement for conducting and reporting prognostic factor analyses with PROs in oncology and will lay the groundwork for developing future evidence-based recommendations in this area of research. Prospero registration number CRD42018099160

Deriving a preference-based measure for cancer using the EORTC QLQ-C30 : a confirmatory versus exploratory approach

Background: To derive preference-based measures from various condition-specific descriptive health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measures. A general 2-stage method is evolved: 1) an item from each domain of the HRQOL measure is selected to form a health state classification system (HSCS); 2) a sample of health states is valued and an algorithm derived for estimating the utility of all possible health states. The aim of this analysis was to determine whether confirmatory or exploratory factor analysis (CFA, EFA) should be used to derive a cancer-specific utility measure from the EORTC QLQ-C30. Methods: Data were collected with the QLQ-C30v3 from 356 patients receiving palliative radiotherapy for recurrent or metastatic cancer (various primary sites). The dimensional structure of the QLQ-C30 was tested with EFA and CFA, the latter based on a conceptual model (the established domain structure of the QLQ-C30: physical, role, emotional, social and cognitive functioning, plus several symptoms) and clinical considerations (views of both patients and clinicians about issues relevant to HRQOL in cancer). The dimensions determined by each method were then subjected to item response theory, including Rasch analysis. Results: CFA results generally supported the proposed conceptual model, with residual correlations requiring only minor adjustments (namely, introduction of two cross-loadings) to improve model fit (increment χ2(2) = 77.78, p 75% observation at lowest score), 6 exhibited misfit to the Rasch model (fit residual > 2.5), none exhibited disordered item response thresholds, 4 exhibited DIF by gender or cancer site. Upon inspection of the remaining items, three were considered relatively less clinically important than the remaining nine. Conclusions: CFA appears more appropriate than EFA, given the well-established structure of the QLQ-C30 and its clinical relevance. Further, the confirmatory approach produced more interpretable results than the exploratory approach. Other aspects of the general method remain largely the same. The revised method will be applied to a large number of data sets as part of the international and interdisciplinary project to develop a multi-attribute utility instrument for cancer (MAUCa)

Highly accurate model for prediction of lung nodule malignancy with CT scans

Computed tomography (CT) examinations are commonly used to predict lung nodule malignancy in patients, which are shown to improve noninvasive early diagnosis of lung cancer. It remains challenging for computational approaches to achieve performance comparable to experienced radiologists. Here we present NoduleX, a systematic approach to predict lung nodule malignancy from CT data, based on deep learning convolutional neural networks (CNN). For training and validation, we analyze >1000 lung nodules in images from the LIDC/IDRI cohort. All nodules were identified and classified by four experienced thoracic radiologists who participated in the LIDC project. NoduleX achieves high accuracy for nodule malignancy classification, with an AUC of ~0.99. This is commensurate with the analysis of the dataset by experienced radiologists. Our approach, NoduleX, provides an effective framework for highly accurate nodule malignancy prediction with the model trained on a large patient population. Our results are replicable with software available at http://bioinformatics.astate.edu/NoduleX