IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0192310.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Prediction models for patients with esophageal or gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • H G van den Boorn
  • E G Engelhardt
  • J van Kleef
  • M A G Sprangers
  • M G H van Oijen
  • A Abu-Hanna
  • A H Zwinderman
  • V M H Coupé
  • H W M van Laarhoven

Abstract

Background: Clinical prediction models are increasingly used to predict outcomes such as survival in cancer patients. The aim of this study was threefold. First, to perform a systematic review to identify available clinical prediction models for patients with esophageal and/or gastric cancer. Second, to evaluate sources of bias in the included studies. Third, to investigate the predictive performance of the prediction models using meta-analysis. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and The Cochrane Library were searched for publications from the year 2000 onwards. Studies describing models predicting survival, adverse events and/or health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for esophageal or gastric cancer patients were included. Potential sources of bias were assessed and a meta-analysis, pooled per prediction model, was performed on the discriminative abilities (c-indices). Results: A total of 61 studies were included (45 development and 16 validation studies), describing 47 prediction models. Most models predicted survival after a curative resection. Nearly 75% of the studies exhibited bias in at least 3 areas and model calibration was rarely reported. The meta-analysis showed that the averaged c-index of the models is fair (0.75) and ranges from 0.65 to 0.85. Conclusion: Most available prediction models only focus on survival after a curative resection, which is only relevant to a limited patient population. Few models predicted adverse events after resection, and none focused on patient’s HRQoL, despite its relevance. Generally, the quality of reporting is poor and external model validation is limited. We conclude that there is a need for prediction models that better meet patients’ information needs, and provide information on both the benefits and harms of the various treatment options in terms of survival, adverse events and HRQoL.

Suggested Citation

  • H G van den Boorn & E G Engelhardt & J van Kleef & M A G Sprangers & M G H van Oijen & A Abu-Hanna & A H Zwinderman & V M H Coupé & H W M van Laarhoven, 2018. "Prediction models for patients with esophageal or gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-20, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0192310
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192310
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0192310
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0192310&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0192310?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chen, Ying-Yeh & Canetto, Silvia Sara & Chien-Chang Wu, Kevin & Chen, Yi-Lung, 2022. "Women’s Suicide in the First-Year Postpartum: A Population-based Study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0192310. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.