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
  • [31] Clinical Prediction Models for Pancreatic Cancer in General and At-Risk Populations: A Systematic Review
    Santos, Ralph
    Coleman, Helen G.
    Cairnduff, Victoria
    Kunzmann, Andrew T.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2023, 118 (01): : 26 - 40
  • [32] Risk Prediction Models for Cardiotoxicity of Chemotherapy Among Patients With Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review
    Kabore, Elise G.
    Macdonald, Conor
    Kabore, Ahmed
    Didier, Romain
    Arveux, Patrick
    Meda, Nicolas
    Boutron-Ruault, Marie-Christine
    Guenancia, Charles
    JAMA NETWORK OPEN, 2023, 6 (02) : E230569
  • [33] Risk Prediction Models for Colorectal Cancer Incorporating Common Genetic Variants: A Systematic Review
    McGeoch, Luke
    Saunders, Catherine L.
    Griffin, Simon J.
    Emery, Jon D.
    Walter, Fiona M.
    Thompson, Deborah J.
    Antoniou, Antonis C.
    Usher-Smith, Juliet A.
    CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION, 2019, 28 (10) : 1580 - 1593
  • [34] Systematic review of modifiable risk factors for kidney cancer
    Al-Bayati, Osamah
    Hasan, Aws
    Pruthi, Deepak
    Kaushik, Dharam
    Liss, Michael A.
    UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY-SEMINARS AND ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2019, 37 (06) : 359 - 371
  • [35] Assessing Risk of Breast Cancer: A Review of Risk Prediction Models
    Bhatt, Asha A.
    Woodard, Genevieve A.
    JOURNAL OF BREAST IMAGING, 2021, 3 (02) : 144 - 155
  • [36] Risk prediction models for contrast induced nephropathy: systematic review
    Silver, Samuel A.
    Shah, Prakesh M.
    Chertow, Glenn M.
    Harel, Shai
    Wald, Ron
    Harel, Ziv
    BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2015, 351
  • [37] Risk Prediction Models of Natural Menopause Onset: A Systematic Review
    Raeisi-Dehkordi, Hamidreza
    Kummer, Stefanie
    Raguindin, Peter Francis
    Dejanovic, Gordana
    Taneri, Petek Eylul
    Cardona, Isabel
    Kastrati, Lum
    Minder, Beatrice
    Voortman, Trudy
    Marques-Vidal, Pedro
    Dhana, Klodian
    Glisic, Marija
    Muka, Taulant
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM, 2022, 107 (10): : 2934 - 2944
  • [38] A systematic review of risk prediction models for falls after stroke
    Walsh, M.
    Horgan, F.
    Galvin, R.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF STROKE, 2015, 10 : 56 - 56
  • [39] Risk Prediction Models for Inadvertent Intraoperative Hypothermia: A Systematic Review
    Yan, Lupei
    Yao, Lili
    Zhao, Qinghua
    Xiao, Mingzhao
    Li, Yuerong
    Min, Su
    JOURNAL OF PERIANESTHESIA NURSING, 2021, 36 (06) : 724 - 729
  • [40] Risk Prediction Models for Hospital Readmission In Surgery: A Systematic Review
    Mehta, Hemalkumar B.
    Sieloff, Eric
    Veeranki, Sreenivas P.
    Sura, Sneha D.
    Riall, Taylor S.
    Senagore, Anthony J.
    Goodwin, James S.
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SURGEONS, 2017, 225 (04) : E113 - E113