STARD for Abstracts: Essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies in journal or conference abstracts

Many abstracts of diagnostic accuracy studies are currently insufficiently informative. We extended the STARD (Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy) statement by developing a list of essential items that authors should consider when reporting diagnostic accuracy studies in journal or conference abstracts. After a literature review of published guidance for reporting biomedical studies, we identified 39 items potentially relevant to report in an abstract. We then selected essential items through a two round web based survey among the 85 members of the STARD Group, followed by discussions within an executive committee. Seventy three STARD Group members responded (86%), with 100% completion rate. STARD for Abstracts is a list of 11 quintessential items, to be reported in every abstract of a diagnostic accuracy study. We provide examples of complete reporting, and developed template text for writing informative abstract

RE: Advanced Breast Cancer Definitions by Staging System Examined in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium

As investigators for ECOG-ACRIN’s Tomosynthesis Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (TMIST) trial, we are writing to draw attention to conceptual issues in the outcome definitions and study population in Kerlikowske et al. (1), which limit inferences with respect to the TMIST trial

Coronary computed tomography angiography compared with single photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging as a guide to optimal medical therapy in patients presenting with stable angina: The RESCUE trial

Background The RESCUE (Randomized Evaluation of Patients with Stable Angina Comparing Utilization of Noninvasive Examinations) trial was a randomized, controlled, multicenter, comparative efficacy outcomes trial designed to assess whether initial testing with coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) is noninferior to single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging in directing patients with stable angina to optimal medical therapy alone or optimal medical therapy with revascularization. Methods and Results The end point was first major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) (cardiac death or myocardial infarction), or revascularization. Noninferiority margin for CCTA was set a priori as a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.3 (95% CI=0, 1.605). One thousand fifty participants from 44 sites were randomized to CCTA (n=518) or SPECT (n=532). Mean follow-up time was 16.2 (SD 7.9) months. There were no cardiac-related deaths. In patients with a negative CCTA there was 1 acute myocardial infarction; in patients with a negative SPECT examination there were 2 acute myocardial infarctions; and for positive CCTA and SPECT, 1 acute myocardial infarction each. Participants in the CCTA arm had a similar rate of MACE or revascularization compared with those in the SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging arm, (HR, 1.03; 95% CI=0.61-1.75)

rPOP: Robust PET-Only Processing of Community Acquired Heterogeneous Amyloid-PET Data

The reference standard for amyloid-PET quantification requires structural MRI (sMRI) for preprocessing in both multi-site research studies and clinical trials. Here we describe rPOP (robust PET-Only Processing), a MATLAB-based MRI-free pipeline implementing non-linear warping and differential smoothing of amyloid-PET scans performed with any of the FDA-approved radiotracers (18F-florbetapir/FBP, 18F-florbetaben/FBB or 18F-flutemetamol/FLUTE). Each image undergoes spatial normalization based on weighted PET templates and data-driven differential smoothing, then allowing users to perform their quantification of choice. Prior to normalization, users can choose whether to automatically reset the origin of the image to the center of mass or proceed with the pipeline with the image as it is. We validate rPOP with n = 740 (514 FBP, 182 FBB, 44 FLUTE) amyloid-PET scans from the Imaging Dementia—Evidence for Amyloid Scanning – Brain Health Registry sub-study (IDEAS-BHR) and n = 1,518 scans from the Alzheimer\u27s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (n = 1,249 FBP, n = 269 FBB), including heterogeneous acquisition and reconstruction protocols. After running rPOP, a standard quantification to extract Standardized Uptake Value ratios and the respective Centiloids conversion was performed. rPOP-based amyloid status (using an independent pathology-based threshold of ≥24.4 Centiloid units) was compared with either local visual reads (IDEAS-BHR, n = 663 with complete valid data and reads available) or with amyloid status derived from an MRI-based PET processing pipeline (ADNI, thresholds of \u3e20/\u3e18 Centiloids for FBP/FBB). Finally, within the ADNI dataset, we tested the linear associations between rPOP- and MRI-based Centiloid values. rPOP achieved accurate warping for N = 2,233/2,258 (98.9%) in the first pass. Of the N = 25 warping failures, 24 were rescued with manual reorientation and origin reset prior to warping. We observed high concordance between rPOP-based amyloid status and both visual reads (IDEAS-BHR, Cohen\u27s k = 0.72 [0.7–0.74], ∼86% concordance) or MRI-pipeline based amyloid status (ADNI, k = 0.88 [0.87–0.89], ∼94% concordance). rPOP- and MRI-pipeline based Centiloids were strongly linearly related (R2:0.95, p\u3c0.001), with this association being significantly modulated by estimated PET resolution (β= -0.016, p\u3c0.001). rPOP provides reliable MRI-free amyloid-PET warping and quantification, leveraging widely available software and only requiring an attenuation-corrected amyloid-PET image as input. The rPOP pipeline enables the comparison and merging of heterogeneous datasets and is publicly available at https://github.com/leoiacca/rPO

CT and MR imaging in the local staging of primary malignant musculoskeletal neoplasms: Report of the Radiology Diagnostic Oncology Group.

PurposeTo assess the relative accuracies of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in the local staging of primary malignant bone and soft-tissue tumors.Materials and methodsAt four institutions, 367 eligible patients (aged 6-89 years) with malignant bone or soft-tissue neoplasms in selected anatomic sites were enrolled. Patients underwent both CT and MR imaging within 4 weeks before surgery. In each patient, CT scans were interpreted independently by two radiologists and MR images by two other radiologists at the enrolling institution. The CT and MR images were then interpreted together by two of those radiologists and subsequently reread at the other institutions. Imaging and histopathologic findings were compared and were supplemented when needed with surgical findings. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis and descriptive statistical analysis were performed.ResultsCases were analyzable in 316 patients: 183 had primary bone tumors; 133 had primary soft-tissue tumors. There was no statistically significant difference between CT and MR imaging in determining tumor involvement of muscle, bone, joints, or neurovascular structures. The combined interpretation of CT and MR images did not statistically significantly improve accuracy. Interreader variability was similar for both modalities.ConclusionCT and MR imaging are equally accurate in the local staging of malignant bone and soft-tissue neoplasms in the specific anatomic sites studied

Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies: The PRISMA-DTA Statement.

This is the final version of the article. Available from American Medical Association via the DOI in this record.Importance: Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy synthesize data from primary diagnostic studies that have evaluated the accuracy of 1 or more index tests against a reference standard, provide estimates of test performance, allow comparisons of the accuracy of different tests, and facilitate the identification of sources of variability in test accuracy. Objective: To develop the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) diagnostic test accuracy guideline as a stand-alone extension of the PRISMA statement. Modifications to the PRISMA statement reflect the specific requirements for reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies and the abstracts for these reviews. Design: Established standards from the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network were followed for the development of the guideline. The original PRISMA statement was used as a framework on which to modify and add items. A group of 24 multidisciplinary experts used a systematic review of articles on existing reporting guidelines and methods, a 3-round Delphi process, a consensus meeting, pilot testing, and iterative refinement to develop the PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline. The final version of the PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline checklist was approved by the group. Findings: The systematic review (produced 64 items) and the Delphi process (provided feedback on 7 proposed items; 1 item was later split into 2 items) identified 71 potentially relevant items for consideration. The Delphi process reduced these to 60 items that were discussed at the consensus meeting. Following the meeting, pilot testing and iterative feedback were used to generate the 27-item PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy checklist. To reflect specific or optimal contemporary systematic review methods for diagnostic test accuracy, 8 of the 27 original PRISMA items were left unchanged, 17 were modified, 2 were added, and 2 were omitted. Conclusions and Relevance: The 27-item PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy checklist provides specific guidance for reporting of systematic reviews. The PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline can facilitate the transparent reporting of reviews, and may assist in the evaluation of validity and applicability, enhance replicability of reviews, and make the results from systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies more useful.The research was supported by grant 375751 from the Canadian Institute for Health Research; funding from the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; funding from the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies Group; funding from the University of Ottawa Department of Radiology Research Stipend Program; and funding from the National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South West Peninsula

Cost-effectiveness of CT screening in the national lung screening trial

BACKGROUND: The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) showed that screening with low-dose computed tomography (CT) as compared with chest radiography reduced lung-cancer mortality. We examined the cost-effectiveness of screening with low-dose CT in the NLST. METHODS: We estimated mean life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs per person, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for three alternative strategies: screening with low-dose CT, screening with radiography, and no screening. Estimations of life-years were based on the number of observed deaths that occurred during the trial and the projected survival of persons who were alive at the end of the trial. Quality adjustments were derived from a subgroup of participants who were selected to complete quality-of-life surveys. Costs were based on utilization rates and Medicare reimbursements. We also performed analyses of subgroups defined according to age, sex, smoking history, and risk of lung cancer and performed sensitivity analyses based on several assumptions. RESULTS: As compared with no screening, screening with low-dose CT cost an additional $1,631 per person (95$52,000 per life-year gained (95% CI, 34,000 to 106,000) and $81,000 per QALY gained (95$81,000 per QALY gained, but we also determined that modest changes in our assumptions would greatly alter this figure. The determination of whether screening outside the trial will be cost-effective will depend on how screening is implemented

P1‐349: Advancing Clinical And Biomarker Research In Ad: The Lead Study

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/152716/1/alzjjalz201906904.pd

Adding a treatment arm to an ongoing clinical trial: a review of methodology and practice

Incorporating an emerging therapy as a new randomisation arm in a clinical trial that is open to recruitment would be desirable to researchers, regulators and patients to ensure that the trial remains current, new treatments are evaluated as quickly as possible, and the time and cost for determining optimal therapies is minimised. It may take many years to run a clinical trial from concept to reporting within a rapidly changing drug development environment; hence, in order for trials to be most useful to inform policy and practice, it is advantageous for them to be able to adapt to emerging therapeutic developments. This paper reports a comprehensive literature review on methodologies for, and practical examples of, amending an ongoing clinical trial by adding a new treatment arm. Relevant methodological literature describing statistical considerations required when making this specific type of amendment is identified, and the key statistical concepts when planning the addition of a new treatment arm are extracted, assessed and summarised. For completeness, this includes an assessment of statistical recommendations within general adaptive design guidance documents. Examples of confirmatory ongoing trials designed within the frequentist framework that have added an arm in practice are reported; and the details of the amendment are reviewed. An assessment is made as to how well the relevant statistical considerations were addressed in practice, and the related implications. The literature review confirmed that there is currently no clear methodological guidance on this topic, but that guidance would be advantageous to help this efficient design amendment to be used more frequently and appropriately in practice. Eight confirmatory trials were identified to have added a treatment arm, suggesting that trials can benefit from this amendment and that it can be practically feasible; however, the trials were not always able to address the key statistical considerations, often leading to uninterpretable or invalid outcomes. If the statistical concepts identified within this review are considered and addressed during the design of a trial amendment, it is possible to effectively assess a new treatment arm within an ongoing trial without compromising the original trial outcomes