American Journal of Epidemiology Practice of Epidemiology Adjusting for Partial Verification or Workup Bias in Meta-analyses of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies

A key requirement in the design of diagnostic accuracy studies is that all study participants receive both the test under evaluation and the reference standard test. For a variety of practical and ethical reasons, sometimes only a proportion of patients receive the reference standard, which can bias the accuracy estimates. Numerous methods have been described for correcting this partial verification bias or workup bias in individual studies. In this article, the authors describe a Bayesian method for obtaining adjusted results from a diagnostic meta-analysis when partial verification or workup bias is present in a subset of the primary studies. The method corrects for verification bias without having to exclude primary studies with verification bias, thus preserving the main advantages of a meta-analysis: increased precision and better generalizability. The results of this method are compared with the existing methods for dealing with verification bias in diagnostic meta-analyses. For illustration, the authors use empirical data from a systematic review of studies of the accuracy of the immunohistochemistry test for diagnosis of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status in breast cancer patients.

[1]  M. Dowsett,et al.  Correlation between immunohistochemistry (HercepTest) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for HER‐2 in 426 breast carcinomas from 37 centres , 2003, The Journal of pathology.

[2]  M. Untch,et al.  Her-2/neu analysis in archival tissue samples of human breast cancer: comparison of immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization. , 2001, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[3]  K J M Janssen,et al.  Multiple imputation to correct for partial verification bias revisited , 2008, Statistics in medicine.

[4]  A. O'Grady,et al.  HER2 Positivity in Breast Carcinoma: A Comparison of Chromogenic In Situ Hybridization With Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization in Tissue Microarrays, With Targeted Evaluation of Intratumoral Heterogeneity by In Situ Hybridization , 2005, Applied immunohistochemistry & molecular morphology : AIMM.

[5]  S D Walter,et al.  Meta-analysis of diagnostic tests with imperfect reference standards. , 1999, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[6]  M. Koelemay,et al.  Diagnostic performance of computed tomography angiography in peripheral arterial disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2009, JAMA.

[7]  Johannes B Reitsma,et al.  Evidence of bias and variation in diagnostic accuracy studies , 2006, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[8]  E D Hsi,et al.  Guidelines for HER2 testing in the UK , 2004, Journal of Clinical Pathology.

[9]  M. Weinstein,et al.  ROC curve regression analysis: the use of ordinal regression models for diagnostic test assessment. , 1994, Environmental health perspectives.

[10]  R A Greenes,et al.  Assessment of diagnostic tests when disease verification is subject to selection bias. , 1983, Biometrics.

[11]  Thomas A Louis,et al.  Random Effects Models in a Meta-Analysis of the Accuracy of Two Diagnostic Tests Without a Gold Standard , 2009, Journal of the American Statistical Association.

[12]  Peter Green,et al.  Markov chain Monte Carlo in Practice , 1996 .

[13]  Z. Nemes,et al.  Comparison of immunohistochemical and fluorescence in situ hybridization assessment of HER-2 status in routine practice. , 2006, American journal of clinical pathology.

[14]  L. Goldstein,et al.  HER-2 testing in breast cancer using parallel tissue-based methods. , 2004, JAMA.

[15]  P. Bossuyt,et al.  Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. , 1999, JAMA.

[16]  Ingram Olkin,et al.  Meta-Analysis: Accuracy of Quantitative Ultrasound for Identifying Patients with Osteoporosis , 2006, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[17]  C M Rutter,et al.  A hierarchical regression approach to meta‐analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations , 2001, Statistics in medicine.

[18]  M. Weinstein,et al.  HER-2 testing and trastuzumab therapy for metastatic breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis. , 2004, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[19]  Nandini Dendukuri,et al.  A Bayesian approach to simultaneously adjusting for verification and reference standard bias in diagnostic test studies , 2010, Statistics in medicine.

[20]  Ron Wolterbeek,et al.  Author affiliations , 2011, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[21]  J. Beneke,et al.  HER2 assessment by immunohistochemical analysis and fluorescence in situ hybridization: comparison of HercepTest and PathVysion commercial assays. , 2002, American journal of clinical pathology.

[22]  A. Feinstein,et al.  Problems of spectrum and bias in evaluating the efficacy of diagnostic tests. , 1978, The New England journal of medicine.

[23]  C. Gatsonis,et al.  Meta-analysis of diagnostic and screening test accuracy evaluations: methodologic primer. , 2006, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[24]  Patrick Bossuyt,et al.  Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy , 2008, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[25]  O. Hoekstra,et al.  Systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of 18F‐fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in melanoma patients , 2001 .

[26]  Jinha M. Park,et al.  Evaluation of HER-2/neu gene amplification and overexpression: comparison of frequently used assay methods in a molecularly characterized cohort of breast cancer specimens. , 2002, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[27]  A. Zwinderman,et al.  Correcting for partial verification bias: a comparison of methods. , 2011, Annals of epidemiology.

[28]  N. Sneige,et al.  HER-2/neu gene amplification compared with HER-2/neu protein overexpression and interobserver reproducibility in invasive breast carcinoma. , 2000, American journal of clinical pathology.

[29]  References , 1971 .

[30]  W. Olszewski,et al.  HER2 status in breast cancer determined by IHC and FISH: comparison of the results. , 2004, Polish journal of pathology : official journal of the Polish Society of Pathologists.

[31]  Mohsen Sadatsafavi,et al.  A statistical method was used for the meta-analysis of tests for latent TB in the absence of a gold standard, combining random-effect and latent-class methods to estimate test accuracy. , 2010, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[32]  Nandini Dendukuri,et al.  Testing for HER2-positive breast cancer: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis , 2007, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[33]  J. Hirsh,et al.  Accuracy of Ultrasound for the Diagnosis of Deep Venous Thrombosis in Asymptomatic Patients after Orthopedic Surgery , 1995, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[34]  Ofer Harel,et al.  Multiple imputation for correcting verification bias , 2006, Statistics in medicine.

[35]  D. Rubin,et al.  Inference from Iterative Simulation Using Multiple Sequences , 1992 .

[36]  R. Knuechel,et al.  Simultaneous detection of HER2/neu gene amplification and protein overexpression in paraffin‐embedded breast cancer , 2005, The Journal of pathology.

[37]  S. Kakar,et al.  HER-2/neu assessment in breast cancer by immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization: comparison of results and correlation with survival. , 2000 .

[38]  Peter A Kaufman,et al.  Concordance between local and central laboratory HER2 testing in the breast intergroup trial N9831. , 2002, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[39]  小倉 廣之 Evaluation of HER-2 status in breast carcinoma by fluorescence in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry , 2003 .

[40]  Frederick Mosteller,et al.  Guidelines for Meta-analyses Evaluating Diagnostic Tests , 1994, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[41]  P. Bossuyt,et al.  Sources of Variation and Bias in Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy , 2004, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[42]  Jinha M. Park,et al.  Diagnostic Evaluation of HER-2 as a Molecular Target: An Assessment of Accuracy and Reproducibility of Laboratory Testing in Large, Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trials , 2005, Clinical Cancer Research.

[43]  J. R. Reeves,et al.  Evaluating HER2 amplification and overexpression in breast cancer , 2001, The Journal of pathology.

[44]  HER-2 testing in breast cancer using immunohistochemical analysis and fluorescence in situ hybridization: a single-institution experience of 2,279 cases and comparison of dual-color and single-color scoring. , 2004, American journal of clinical pathology.

[45]  Johannes B Reitsma,et al.  Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. , 2005, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[46]  H. Tsuda,et al.  Detection of HER‐2/neu (c‐erb B‐2) DNA amplification in primary breast carcinoma , 2001, Cancer.

[47]  M. Pritz,et al.  Methods for combining rates from several studies. , 1999, Statistics in medicine.

[48]  L. Joseph,et al.  Bayesian estimation of disease prevalence and the parameters of diagnostic tests in the absence of a gold standard. , 1995, American journal of epidemiology.