Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39638589›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2024

Systematic review of prognostic models for predicting recurrence and survival in patients with treated oropharyngeal cancer.

Janine Dretzke, Ahmad K Abou-Foul, Esther Albon, Bethany Hillier, Katie Scandrett, Malcolm J Price, David J Moore, Hisham Mehanna, Paul Nankivell

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

9 authors.

Janine Dretzke *Department of Applied Health Sciences, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK j.dretzke@bham.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2591-6918
Ahmad K Abou-Foul *Institute for Head and Neck Studies and Education, Department of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Esther AlbonDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Bethany HillierDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Katie ScandrettDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Malcolm J PriceDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
David J MooreDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Hisham MehannaInstitute for Head and Neck Studies and Education, Department of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5544-6224
Paul NankivellInstitute for Head and Neck Studies and Education, Department of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis systematic review aims to evaluate externally validated models for individualised prediction of recurrence or survival in adults treated with curative intent for oropharyngeal cancer.

designSystematic review.

settingHospital care.

methodsSystematic searches were conducted up to September 2023 and records were screened independently by at least two reviewers. The Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool was used to assess risk of bias (RoB). Model discrimination measures (c-indices) were presented in forest plots. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis.

resultsFifteen studies developing and/or evaluating 25 individualised risk prediction models were included. The majority (77%) of c-indices for model developments and validations were ≥0.7 indicating 'good' discriminatory ability for models predicting overall survival. For disease-specific measures, most (73%) c-indices for model development were also ≥0.7, but fewer (40%) were ≥0.7 for external validations. Comparisons across models and outcome measures were hampered by heterogeneity. Only two studies directly compared models in the same cohort. Since all models were subject to a high RoB, primarily due to concerns with the analysis, the trustworthiness of the findings remains uncertain. Concerns included a lack of accounting for potentially missing data, model overfitting or competing risks as well as small event numbers. There were fewer concerns related to the participant, predictor and outcome domains, although reporting was not always detailed enough to make an informed decision. Where human papilloma virus (HPV) status and/or a radiomics score were included as a variable, models had better discriminative ability.

conclusionsThere were no models assessed as being at low RoB. Given that HPV status or a radiomics score appeared to improve model discriminative performance, further external validation of existing models to assess generalisability should focus on models that include HPV status as a variable. Development and validation of future models should be considered in HPV+ or HPV- cohorts separately to ensure representativeness. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021248762.

Indexed as

Neoplasm Recurrence, LocalOropharyngeal NeoplasmsHumansPrognosisRisk Assessmenthead & neck tumoursprognosissystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39638589
PMCPMC11624838

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.