Net benefit approaches to the evaluation of prediction models, molecular markers, and diagnostic tests

Many decisions in medicine involve trade-offs, such as between diagnosing patients with disease versus unnecessary additional testing for those who are healthy. Net benefit is an increasingly reported decision analytic measure that puts benefits and harms on the same scale. This is achieved by specifying an exchange rate, a clinical judgment of the relative value of benefits (such as detecting a cancer) and harms (such as unnecessary biopsy) associated with models, markers, and tests. The exchange rate can be derived by asking simple questions, such as the maximum number of patients a doctor would recommend for biopsy to find one cancer. As the answers to these sorts of questions are subjective, it is possible to plot net benefit for a range of reasonable exchange rates in a “decision curve.” For clinical prediction models, the exchange rate is related to the probability threshold to determine whether a patient is classified as being positive or negative for a disease. Net benefit is useful for determining whether basing clinical decisions on a model, marker, or test would do more good than harm. This is in contrast to traditional measures such as sensitivity, specificity, or area under the curve, which are statistical abstractions not directly informative about clinical value. Recent years have seen an increase in practical applications of net benefit analysis to research data. This is a welcome development, since decision analytic techniques are of particular value when the purpose of a model, marker, or test is to help doctors make better clinical decisions.

[1]  Andrew J Vickers Decision Analysis for the Evaluation of Diagnostic Tests, Prediction Models, and Molecular Markers , 2008, The American statistician.

[2]  Benjamin R Saville,et al.  Decision curve analysis. , 2015, JAMA.

[3]  Kim Pettersson,et al.  Reducing unnecessary biopsy during prostate cancer screening using a four-kallikrein panel: an independent replication. , 2010, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[4]  Elena B. Elkin,et al.  Extensions to decision curve analysis, a novel method for evaluating diagnostic tests, prediction models and molecular markers , 2008, BMC Medical Informatics Decis. Mak..

[5]  Gary S Collins,et al.  Predicting the 10 year risk of cardiovascular disease in the United Kingdom: independent and external validation of an updated version of QRISK2 , 2012, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[6]  E. Steyerberg Clinical Prediction Models , 2008, Statistics for Biology and Health.

[7]  B. van Calster,et al.  Calibration of Risk Prediction Models , 2015, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[8]  Ewout W Steyerberg,et al.  Decision Curve Analysis: A Discussion , 2008, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[9]  Hester F. Lingsma,et al.  Assessing the incremental value of diagnostic and prognostic markers: a review and illustration , 2012, European journal of clinical investigation.

[10]  E. Elkin,et al.  Decision Curve Analysis: A Novel Method for Evaluating Prediction Models , 2006, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[11]  Jonathan Izawa,et al.  Prospective multi-institutional study evaluating the performance of prostate cancer risk calculators. , 2011, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[12]  K Claxton,et al.  The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. , 1999, Journal of health economics.

[13]  M. Pencina,et al.  Evaluation of Markers and Risk Prediction Models , 2013, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[14]  David I. Lee,et al.  Comparison of three different tools for prediction of seminal vesicle invasion at radical prostatectomy. , 2012, European urology.

[15]  Ewout W. Steyerberg,et al.  F1000Prime recommendation of Calibration of risk prediction models: impact on decision-analytic performance. , 2014 .

[16]  N. Obuchowski,et al.  Assessing the Performance of Prediction Models: A Framework for Traditional and Novel Measures , 2010, Epidemiology.

[17]  E. Steyerberg,et al.  Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) 3: Prognostic Model Research , 2013, PLoS medicine.

[18]  Paul K J Han,et al.  Validation of the Patient-Reported Outcome Mortality Prediction Tool (PROMPT). , 2015, Journal of pain and symptom management.

[19]  Donna P Ankerst,et al.  Prospective evaluation of operating characteristics of prostate cancer detection biomarkers. , 2011, The Journal of urology.

[20]  Lori J Sokoll,et al.  Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial risk calculator 2.0 for the prediction of low- vs high-grade prostate cancer. , 2014, Urology.

[21]  S. Goodman,et al.  Beyond the Usual Prediction Accuracy Metrics: Reporting Results for Clinical Decision Making , 2012, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[22]  S. Duffy,et al.  Predictive Accuracy of the Liverpool Lung Project Risk Model for Stratifying Patients for Computed Tomography Screening for Lung Cancer , 2012, Annals of Internal Medicine.