Risk Prediction Models for Kidney Cancer: A Systematic Review

被引:29
|
作者
Harrison, Hannah [1 ]
Thompson, Rachel E. [2 ]
Lin, Zhiyuan [2 ]
Rossi, Sabrina H. [3 ]
Stewart, Grant D. [3 ]
Griffin, Simon J. [1 ]
Usher-Smith, Juliet A. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Cambridge, Dept Publ Hlth & Primary Care, Primary Care Unit, Cambridge, England
[2] Univ Cambridge, Addenbrookes Hosp, Sch Clin Med, Cambridge, England
[3] Univ Cambridge, Addenbrookes Hosp, Dept Surg, Cambridge, England
来源
EUROPEAN UROLOGY FOCUS | 2021年 / 7卷 / 06期
关键词
Kidney cancer; Early detection; Screening; Systematic review; RENAL-CELL CARCINOMA; APPLICABILITY; BIOMARKERS; SURVIVAL; PROBAST; BIAS; TOOL; AGE;
D O I
10.1016/j.euf.2020.06.024
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Context: Early detection of kidney cancer improves survival; however, low prevalence means that population-wide screening may be inefficient. Stratification of the population into risk categories could allow for the introduction of a screening programme tailored to individuals. Objective: This review will identify and compare published models that predict the risk of developing kidney cancer in the general population. Evidence acquisition: A search identified primary research reporting or validating models predicting the risk of kidney cancer in Medline and EMBASE. After screening identified studies for inclusion, we extracted data onto a standardised form. The risk models were classified using the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) guidelines and evaluated using the PROBAST assessment tool. Evidence synthesis: The search identified 15 281 articles. Sixty-two satisfied the inclusion criteria; performance measures were provided for 11 models. Some models predicted the risk of prevalent undiagnosed disease and others future incident disease. Six of the models had been validated, two using external populations. The most commonly included risk factors were age, smoking status, and body mass index. Most of the models had acceptable-to-good discrimination (area under the receiver-operating curve >0.7) in development and validation. Many models also had high specificity; however, several had low sensitivity. The highest performance was seen for the models using only biomarkers to detect kidney cancer; however, these were developed and validated in small case-control studies. Conclusions: We identified a small number of risk models that could be used to stratify the population according to the risk of kidney cancer. Most exhibit reasonable discrimination, but a few have been validated externally in population-based studies. Patient summary: In this review, we looked at mathematical models predicting the likelihood of an individual developing kidney cancer. We found several suitable models, using a range of risk factors (such as age and smoking) to predict the risk for individuals. Most of the models identified require further testing in the general population to confirm their usefulness. (c) 2020 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
引用
收藏
页码:1380 / 1390
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] RISK PREDICTION MODELS FOR MELANOMA: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
    Walter, Fiona M.
    Usher-Smith, Juliet A.
    Kassianos, Angelos
    Emery, Jon
    ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2014, 10 : 61 - 62
  • [22] A systematic review and quality assessment of individualised breast cancer risk prediction models
    Javier Louro
    Margarita Posso
    Michele Hilton Boon
    Marta Román
    Laia Domingo
    Xavier Castells
    María Sala
    British Journal of Cancer, 2019, 121 : 76 - 85
  • [23] Lung cancer risk prediction models based on pulmonary nodules: A systematic review
    Wu, Zheng
    Wang, Fei
    Cao, Wei
    Qin, Chao
    Dong, Xuesi
    Yang, Zhuoyu
    Zheng, Yadi
    Luo, Zilin
    Zhao, Liang
    Yu, Yiwen
    Xu, Yongjie
    Li, Jiang
    Tang, Wei
    Shen, Sipeng
    Wu, Ning
    Tan, Fengwei
    Li, Ni
    He, Jie
    THORACIC CANCER, 2022, 13 (05) : 664 - 677
  • [24] A systematic review and quality assessment of individualised breast cancer risk prediction models
    Louro, Javier
    Posso, Margarita
    Boon, Michele Hilton
    Roman, Marta
    Domingo, Laia
    Castells, Xavier
    Sala, Maria
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2019, 121 (01) : 76 - 85
  • [25] The representation of multimorbidity and frailty in the development and validation of kidney failure risk prediction models - a systematic review
    Walker, Heather
    Day, Scott
    Ker, Robert
    Grant, Christopher H.
    Jones, Catrin
    Sullivan, Michael
    Jani, Bhautesh
    Gallacher, Katie
    Mark, Patrick
    NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION, 2024, 39 : I2381 - I2381
  • [26] Risk prediction models for acute kidney injury following major noncardiac surgery: systematic review
    Wilson, Todd
    Quan, Samuel
    Cheema, Kim
    Zarnke, Kelly
    Quinn, Rob
    de Koning, Lawrence
    Dixon, Elijah
    Pannu, Neesh
    James, Matthew T.
    NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION, 2016, 31 (02) : 231 - 240
  • [27] Characterization of Risk Prediction Models for Acute Kidney Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    Feng, Yunlin
    Wang, Amanda Y.
    Jun, Min
    Pu, Lei
    Weisbord, Steven D.
    Bellomo, Rinaldo
    Hong, Daqing
    Gallagher, Martin
    JAMA NETWORK OPEN, 2023, 6 (05)
  • [28] Prediction models for the risk of gestational diabetes: a systematic review
    Marije Lamain – de Ruiter
    Anneke Kwee
    Christiana A. Naaktgeboren
    Arie Franx
    Karel G. M. Moons
    Maria P. H. Koster
    Diagnostic and Prognostic Research, 1 (1)
  • [29] Risk Prediction Models for Hospital Readmission A Systematic Review
    Kansagara, Devan
    Englander, Honora
    Salanitro, Amanda
    Kagen, David
    Theobald, Cecelia
    Freeman, Michele
    Kripalani, Sunil
    JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2011, 306 (15): : 1688 - 1698
  • [30] Risk Prediction Models for Colorectal Cancer: A Review
    Win, Aung Ko
    MacInnis, Robert J.
    Hopper, John L.
    Jenkins, Mark A.
    CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION, 2012, 21 (03) : 398 - 410