Survival Analysis in a Prediction Model for Early Systemic Recurrence in Breast Cancer

Jian-Qing Qiu,Wen-Li Zhang,Xiang Fang,Tao Cui
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.34417
IF: 6.9209
2022-01-01
Cancer
Abstract:With interest, we have read Osako et al.’s article, published in Cancer, on prediction model development and validation for early systemic recurrence in breast cancer using a molecular diagnostic analysis of sentinel lymph nodes. The authors used two logistic models for prediction model development, and the model, exhibiting good predictive performance, yielded an area under the curve of 0.83, a sensitivity of 63.4%, a specificity of 81.7%, and an accuracy of 81.1%. However, there are several potential limitations that we would like to point out. First, in the Adjuvant Treatment and FollowUp section, the authors did not present the ending time of the followup or a specific starting time. According to the Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis guideline, the description of the cohort study was not complete. We did not know the general followup time of the cohort patients to the end, and we could not judge whether every patient’s followup information was collected for 5 years. Moreover, because several missing data points could be seen as unknown for major variables (the total tumor load in sentinel lymph nodes and other covariates in their Table 1), we suggest that the authors elucidate the data handling methods (missing from the Statistical Analyses section) or compare the characteristics of the complete data set with those of the incomplete data set to avoid an attrition bias. In addition, although logistic models could be used for prediction model development, Cox models are preferred for recurrencefree survival estimations in retrospective studies when followup information will be collected, as the authors did for the survival plot depicted in their Figure 1.3 The Cox model is a timedependent model that can use time information better than a logistic model and can handle censored data as well. Last but not least, 95% confidence intervals of the sensitivity and specificity could be necessary items for the uncertainty interpretation of the predictive models. By the way, a patient selection diagram in the Patient Selection section is recommended to clarify the procedure of patient selection. In conclusion, revisions in terms of the aforementioned flaws would considerably solidify the conclusions of the study by Osako and his colleagues.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?