Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35732292›Full record

ArticleCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2022

The Intervention Probability Curve: Modeling the Practical Application of Threshold-Guided Decision-Making, Evaluated in Lung, Prostate, and Ovarian Cancers.

Michael N Kammer, Dianna J Rowe, Stephen A Deppen, Eric L Grogan, Alexander M Kaizer, Anna E Barón, Fabien Maldonado

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Michael N KammerVanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.ORCID 0000-0001-7912-8450
Dianna J RoweVanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.ORCID 0000-0003-3406-4881
Stephen A DeppenVanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.ORCID 0000-0002-3661-662X
Eric L GroganVanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.ORCID 0000-0002-3886-9399
Alexander M KaizerColorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado.ORCID 0000-0003-2334-5514
Anna E BarónColorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado.ORCID 0000-0002-7949-4343
Fabien MaldonadoVanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.ORCID 0000-0002-6504-2063

Funding

Validation of Biomarkers of Risk for the Early Detection of Lung CancerU01CA152662 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI DEPPEN, STEPHEN, GROGAN, ERIC L · 2010 to 2025
$12.8M
Novel Integrative Approach for the Early Detection of Lung Cancer using Repeated MeasuresR01CA253923 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI LANDMAN, BENNETT A., MALDONADO, FABIEN · 2021 to 2025
$3.4M
Clinical Utility of Biomarkers Driven Management of Indeterminate Pulmonary NodulesR01CA252964 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI Eric L Grogan, Alexander Mark Kaizer · 2021 to 2026
$3.3M
Non-invasive evaluation of indeterminate pulmonary nodulesU01CA186145 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI MASSION, PIERRE P. · 2015 to 2019
$2.0M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA252964NCI NIH HHS R01 CA253923NCI NIH HHS U01 CA152662NCI NIH HHS U01 CA186145
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiagnostic prediction models are useful guides when considering lesions suspicious for cancer, as they provide a quantitative estimate of the probability that a lesion is malignant. However, the decision to intervene ultimately rests on patient and physician preferences. The appropriate intervention in many clinical situations is typically defined by clinically relevant, actionable subgroups based upon the probability of malignancy. However, the "all-or-nothing" approach of threshold-based decisions is in practice incorrect.

methodsHere, we present a novel approach to understanding clinical decision-making, the intervention probability curve (IPC). The IPC models the likelihood that an intervention will be chosen as a continuous function of the probability of disease. We propose the cumulative distribution function as a suitable model. The IPC is explored using the National Lung Screening Trial and the Prostate Lung Colorectal and Ovarian Screening Trial datasets.

resultsFitting the IPC results in a continuous curve as a function of pretest probability of cancer with high correlation (R2 > 0.97 for each) with fitted parameters closely aligned with professional society guidelines.

conclusionsThe IPC allows analysis of intervention decisions in a continuous, rather than threshold-based, approach to further understand the role of biomarkers and risk models in clinical practice. IMPACT: We propose that consideration of IPCs will yield significant insights into the practical relevance of threshold-based management strategies and could provide a novel method to estimate the actual clinical utility of novel biomarkers.

Indexed as

Ovarian NeoplasmsProstateFemaleHumansLungMaleProbabilityResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID35732292
PMCPMC9491691

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.