External validation of the Bayesian Estimated Tools for Survival (BETS) models in patients with surgically treated skeletal metastases

BMC Cancer

Jonathan Agner Forsberg³  Rikard Wedin³  Henrik CF Bauer³  Bjarne H Hansen²  Minna Laitinen⁴  Clement S Trovik⁵  Johnny Ø Keller²  Patrick J Boland¹  John H Healey¹ 

[1] Department of Surgery, Orthopaedic Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA

[2] Department of Orthopaedics, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark

[3] Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Section of Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

[4] Division of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland

[5] Department for Orthopaedic Rehabilitation, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway

关键词: Postoperative survival;    Prognostic model;    Skeletal metastasis;    Bayesian analysis;   

Others  :  1080117
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2407-12-493

 received in 2012-07-12, accepted in 2012-10-11,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

We recently developed two Bayesian networks, referred to as the Bayesian-Estimated Tools for Survival (BETS) models, capable of estimating the likelihood of survival at 3 and 12 months following surgery for patients with operable skeletal metastases (BETS-3 and BETS-12, respectively). In this study, we attempted to externally validate the BETS-3 and BETS-12 models using an independent, international dataset.

Methods

Data were collected from the Scandinavian Skeletal Metastasis Registry for patients with extremity skeletal metastases surgically treated at eight major Scandinavian referral centers between 1999 and 2009. These data were applied to the BETS-3 and BETS-12 models, which generated a probability of survival at 3 and 12 months for each patient. Model robustness was assessed using the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC). An analysis of incorrect estimations was also performed.

Results

Our dataset contained 815 records with adequate follow-up information to establish survival at 12 months. All records were missing data including the surgeon’s estimate of survival, which was previously shown to be a first-degree associate of survival in both models. The AUCs for the BETS-3 and BETS-12 models were 0.79 and 0.76, respectively. Incorrect estimations by both models were more commonly optimistic than pessimistic.

Conclusions

The BETS-3 and BETS-12 models were successfully validated using an independent dataset containing missing data. These models are the first validated tools for accurately estimating postoperative survival in patients with operable skeletal metastases of the extremities and can provide the surgeon with valuable information to support clinical decisions in this patient population.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Forsberg et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Algan SM, Horowitz SM: Surgical treatment of pathologic hip lesions in patients with metastatic disease. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1996, (332):223-231.
• [2]Wedin R: Surgical treatment for pathologic fracture. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 2001, 72(2p):1-29.
• [3]Katagiri H, Takahashi M, Wakai K, Sugiura H, Kataoka T, Nakanishi K: Prognostic factors and a scoring system for patients with skeletal metastasis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005, 87:698-703.
• [4]Forsberg JA, Eberhardt J, Boland PJ, Wedin R, Healey JH: Estimating survival in patients with operable skeletal metastases: an application of a bayesian belief network. PLoS One 2011, 6:e19956.
• [5]Bauer HC, Wedin R: Survival after surgery for spinal and extremity metastases. Prognostication in 241 patients. Acta Orthop Scand 1995, 66:143-146.
• [6]Tokuhashi Y, Matsuzaki H, Oda H, Oshima M, Ryu J: A revised scoring system for preoperative evaluation of metastatic spine tumor prognosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005, 30:2186-2191.
• [7]Hansen BH, Keller J, Laitinen M, Berg P, Skjeldal S, Trovik C, Nilsson J, Walloe A, Kalén A, Wedin R: The Scandinavian Sarcoma Group Skeletal Metastasis Register. Survival after surgery for bone metastases in the pelvis and extremities. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 2004, 75:11-15.
• [8]Chow E, Finkelstein JA, Coleman RE: Metastatic cancer to the bone. In DeVita, Hellman, and Rosenberg's Cancer: Principles & practice of oncology. Edited by DeVita VT, Lawrence TS, Rosenberg SA, Weinberg RA, DePinho RA. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008:2510-2515.
• [9]Lin PP, Mirza AN, Lewis VO, Cannon CP, Tu SM, Tannir NM, Yasko AW: Patient survival after surgery for osseous metastases from renal cell carcinoma. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007, 89:1794-1801.
• [10]Wedin R, Bauer HC, Wersall P: Failures after operation for skeletal metastatic lesions of long bones. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1999, (358):128-139.
• [11]Buccheri G, Ferrigno D, Tamburini M: Karnofsky and ECOG performance status scoring in lung cancer: a prospective, longitudinal study of 536 patients from a single institution. Eur J Cancer 1996, 32A:1135-1141.
• [12]Tokuhashi Y, Matsuzaki H, Toriyama S, Kawano H, Ohsaka S: Scoring system for the preoperative evaluation of metastatic spine tumor prognosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1990, 15:1110-1113.
• [13]Karnofsky DA, Burchenal JH: The clinical evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents in cancer. In Evaluation of Chemotherapeutic Agents. 1st edition. Edited by MacLeod CM. New York: Columbia University Press; 1949:196.
• [14]Yamashita T, Siemionow KB, Mroz TE, Podichetty V, Lieberman IH: A prospective analysis of prognostic factors in patients with spinal metastases: Use of the revised Tokuhashi score. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010, 36:910-917.
• [15]Nathan SS, Healey JH, Mellano D, Hoang B, Lewis I, Morris CD, Athanasian EA, Boland PJ: Survival in patients operated on for pathologic fracture: Implications for end-of-life orthopedic care. J Clin Oncol 2005, 23:6072-6082.
• [16]Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, Horton J, Davis TE: Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol 1982, 5:649-655.
• [17]Rubin DB, Schenker N: Multiple imputation in health-care databases: an overview and some applications. Stat Med 1991, 10:585-598.
• [18]Pearl J: Introduction to probabilities, graphs, and causal models. In Causality: models, reasoning, and inference. Edited by Pearl J. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2009:1-38.