Validation of the online prediction tool PREDICT v. 2.0 in the Dutch breast cancer population.

BACKGROUND: PREDICT version 2.0 is increasingly used to estimate prognosis in breast cancer. This study aimed to validate this tool in specific prognostic subgroups in the Netherlands. METHODS: All operated women with non-metastatic primary invasive breast cancer, diagnosed in 2005, were selected from the nationwide Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR). Predicted and observed 5- and 10-year overall survival (OS) were compared for the overall cohort, separated by oestrogen receptor (ER) status, and predefined subgroups. A >5% difference was considered as clinically relevant. Discriminatory accuracy and goodness-of-fit were determined using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and the Chi-squared-test. RESULTS: We included 8834 patients. Discriminatory accuracy for 5-year OS was good (AUC 0.80). For ER-positive and ER-negative patients, AUCs were 0.79 and 0.75, respectively. Predicted 5-year OS differed from observed by -1.4% in the entire cohort, -0.7% in ER-positive and -4.9% in ER-negative patients. Five-year OS was accurately predicted in all subgroups. Discriminatory accuracy for 10-year OS was good (AUC 0.78). For ER-positive and ER-negative patients AUCs were 0.78 and 0.76, respectively. Predicted 10-year OS differed from observed by -1.0% in the entire cohort, -0.1% in ER-positive and -5.3 in ER-negative patients. Ten-year OS was overestimated (6.3%) in patients ≥75 years and underestimated (-13.%) in T3 tumours and patients treated with both endocrine therapy and chemotherapy (-6.6%). CONCLUSIONS: PREDICT predicts OS reliably in most Dutch breast cancer patients, although results for both 5-year and 10-year OS should be interpreted carefully in ER-negative patients. Furthermore, 10-year OS should be interpreted cautiously in patients ≥75 years, T3 tumours and in patients considering endocrine therapy and chemotherapy

Reference values for generic instruments used in routine outcome monitoring: the leiden routine outcome monitoring study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Introduction</p> <p>The Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), Mood & Anxiety Symptom Questionnaire −30 (MASQ-D30), Short Form Health Survey 36 (SF-36), and Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology-Short Form (DAPP-SF) are generic instruments that can be used in Routine Outcome Monitoring (ROM) of patients with common mental disorders. We aimed to generate reference values usually encountered in 'healthy' and ‘psychiatrically ill’ populations to facilitate correct interpretation of ROM results.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We included the following specific reference populations: 1294 subjects from the general population (ROM reference group) recruited through general practitioners, and 5269 psychiatric outpatients diagnosed with mood, anxiety, or somatoform (MAS) disorders (ROM patient group). The outermost 5% of observations were used to define limits for one-sided reference intervals (95^th percentiles for BSI, MASQ-D30 and DAPP-SF, and 5^th percentiles for SF-36 subscales). Internal consistency and Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) analyses were performed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Mean age for the ROM reference group was 40.3 years (SD=12.6) and 37.7 years (SD=12.0) for the ROM patient group. The proportion of females was 62.8% and 64.6%, respectively. The mean for cut-off values of healthy individuals was 0.82 for the BSI subscales, 23 for the three MASQ-D30 subscales, 45 for the SF-36 subscales, and 3.1 for the DAPP-SF subscales. Discriminative power of the BSI, MASQ-D30 and SF-36 was good, but it was poor for the DAPP-SF. For all instruments, the internal consistency of the subscales ranged from adequate to excellent.</p> <p>Discussion and conclusion</p> <p>Reference values for the clinical interpretation were provided for the BSI, MASQ-D30, SF-36, and DAPP-SF. Clinical information aided by ROM data may represent the best means to appraise the clinical state of psychiatric outpatients.</p