Abstract 1312
Background
Predictive online calculators are used by clinicians as decision aids in early breast cancer (EBC). While use statistics for these calculators have not been published, as of 2017 NHS Predict was being accessed more than 20,000 times a month. These predictive tools have not had accuracy & benefit of use prospectively confirmed in EBC, yet use of calculators has been encouraged in EBC guidelines. It is important to understand the populations informing model development & validation, to understand how data bias may impact predictions in under-represented subpopulations. This work sought to elucidate the risk of bias in model development & validation for 3 online EBC calculators (NHS Predict, Adjuvant! & Cancermath), in an effort to highlight sub-populations where calculated risk & therefore treatment benefit estimates may be less reliable.
Methods
A literature search was conducted in PubMed, search terms were “predict*” “adjuvant” “breast” & “algorithm”. Results were screened for relevance to the three predictive tools under scrutiny & additional references were extracted from relevant papers. Using a modified CHARMS checklist, the relevant sections of the development & validation papers were extracted.
Results
6 development & 24 validation papers were reviewed as summarised in the TableTable:
264P
| Predict | Adjuvant | Cancermath | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Development population size & date range | 5694 1977-2008 | 37,968 1977-2007 | 499,724 1977-2007 |
| Aged <35 in development population | 2% (111) | 0 | >0.5% |
| Aged >65 in development population | 32% (1781) | 0 | >17% |
| Tumour size >5cm in development population | 5% (287) | 0 | 0 |
| Number of validation studies | 10 | 13 | 3 |
| % retrospective | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Total number of patients in validation studies | 19,864 | 19,618 | 11,203 |
| Age >65 in validations | 35% (7134) | 42% (8313) | 40% (4519) |
| Age <35 in validations | 16% (3235) | 8% (1518) | 9% (1007) |
| Tumour size >5cm in validations | 5% (287) | 5% (1015) | 6% (634) |
| Universal exclusions | Multi-focal, inflammatory, male | Multi-focal, inflammatory, male | Multi-focal, inflammatory, male |
| Neoadjuvant chemotherapy not an exclusion | 1 study (121 patients) | 0 | 0 |
| Overall conclusions of validation authors | Earlier versions under-predicted mortality in women <35 Poor performance in tumours >5cm. | Poor performance in general in: <35 and >65 More advanced disease Malay ethnicity Overly optimistic survival predictions across subgroups in UK population. | Poor performance in < 35 Systematically under-predicted mortality, especially for ER-negative tumours. |
Conclusions
All 3 predictive tools have under-represented groups in their development cohorts, specifically those under 35 & over 65 years old, as well as larger tumours. Validation studies consistently demonstrate worse performance in these groups. However, due to inconsistent methodology in validation studies, quantitating the summary performance within & across tools is difficult. These predictive tools should be used with caution in under-represented populations. More work is required to look at clinical utility of tools as well as their statistical performance.
Clinical trial identification
Editorial acknowledgement
Legal entity responsible for the study
The authors.
Funding
Has not received any funding.
Disclosure
All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Resources from the same session
1849 - Effect of thioredoxin 1 quantity detection to complement the mammography in breast cancer diagnosis
Presenter: Younju Lee
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
2221 - Identification of ultralow risk breast cancer patients (probable overdiagnosis)
Presenter: Salvador Gamez Casado
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
5291 - Prevalence of Vitamin D3 deficiency among women with early breast cancer receiving chemotherapy in an oncology dayward.
Presenter: Warner Finstad
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
4247 - Changes in ER pathway activity score during neoadjuvant letrozole to assess therapy response and predict disease free survival (DFS) in ER positive breast cancer patients
Presenter: Arran Turnbull
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
568 - Second primary malignancies in patients with breast cancer.
Presenter: Carlos Erasun Lecuona
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
1428 - Phase II randomized trial of neoadjuvant trastuzumab and pertuzumab (TP) with either palbociclib + letrozole (Pal+L) or paclitaxel (Pac) for elderly patients with estrogen receptor & HER2 positive (ER+/HER2+) Breast Cancer (BC) (International Breast Cancer Study Group IBCSG 55-17, TOUCH)
Presenter: Laura Biganzoli
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
1479 - Neoadjuvant HER2-targeted therapy with or without immunotherapy with pembrolizumab (neoHIP): an open label randomized phase 2 trial
Presenter: Heather McArthur
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
1481 - A randomized phase 2 study of peri-operative ipilimumab, nivolumab and cryoablation versus standard care in women with residual, early stage/resectable, triple negative breast cancer after standard-of-care neoadjuvant chemotherapy
Presenter: Heather McArthur
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
4334 - ALEXANDRA/IMpassion030: A phase 3 study of standard adjuvant chemotherapy with or without atezolizumab in early stage triple negative breast cancer.
Presenter: Michail Ignatiadis
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
2107 - Role of Individualized Intervention(s) on Quality of Life (QOL) and Adherence to Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy in Premenopausal Women with Early-Stage Breast Cancer (BC): MyChoice Study
Presenter: Shahid Ahmed
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract