Risk Prediction in Clinical Practice Joann G. Elmore MD, MPH SCCA June 11, 2014.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Which of the following increases a women’s risk for Breast Cancer? A.Starting her menses at age 14 or older B.Breastfeeding C.Extremely dense breast tissue.
Advertisements

Health Literacy: how to explain risk? Dr. Keiko Yasukawa University of Technology, Sydney.
Is it True? Evaluating Research about Diagnostic Tests
Breast MR Imaging Workshop th September 2014 High-Risk Screening Evidence-based Clinical Indications for Breast MRI Dr. Muhamad Zabidi Ahmad, AMDI.
Breast Density A patient guide.
Objectives (BPS chapter 12)
How do we know whether a marker or model is any good? A discussion of some simple decision analytic methods Carrie Bennette on behalf of Andrew Vickers.
Every Woman, Every Time: Disparities in Breast Cancer Tony L. Weaver, D.O. ALOMA 2015.
Azara Proprietary & Confidential Overview June 2014 Improving Patient Outcomes through Data.
Mapping Rates and Proportions. Incidence rates Mortality rates Birth rates Prevalence Proportions Percentages.
Heather Brewster Breast Cancer - 5 Year Survivor.
Disparities in Cancer September 22, Introduction Despite notable advances in cancer prevention, screening, and treatment, a disproportionate number.
Driving the Transition to Individualized Cancer Treatment by Addressing Critical Questions 1 Do I need surgery? chemotherapy? radiation? INVASIVE BREAST.
Statistics in Screening/Diagnosis
Mastectomy 16gene.html (article) 16gene.html
Criteria for Assessment of Performance of Cancer Risk Prediction Models: Overview Ruth Pfeiffer Cancer Risk Prediction Workshop, May 21, 2004 Division.
Atoosa Adibi MD. Department of Radiology Isfahan University Of Medical Sciences.
What’s Next After an Abnormal Screening Mammogram? James A. Stewart, M.D. Beth Burnside, M.D. May 19, 2004.
Clinical Applications of Risk Prediction Models Laura Esserman, M.D., M.B.A. Professor of Surgery and Radiology Director, UCSF Carol Franc Buck Breast.
A 44 year old woman with breast pain……… March 10, 2004 Primary Care Conference Shobhina Chheda MD MPH (no financial disclosures)
Decision Support as a Clinical Skill Module V: Communicating Risk Information Last update: September 2008.
Changes in Breast Cancer Reports After Second Opinion Dr. Vicente Marco Department of Pathology Hospital Quiron Barcelona. Spain.
Previous Lecture: Data types and Representations in Molecular Biology.
Hypertension: Blood Pressure Measurement and the new NICE guideline Prof Richard McManus BHS Annual Meeting Cambridge 2011 NICE clinical guideline 127.
PCa Screening New Areas of Research Francesco Montorsi Milan.
CISNET and BCSC: Working Together To Model The Population Impact Breast Cancer Screening A Celebration of the Work of the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.
Spillover Effects of State Mandated-Benefit Laws The Case of Outpatient Breast Cancer Surgery June 5, 2007 John Bian, Ph.D., Atlanta VAMC, American Cancer.
FAVOR F actors A ssociated with V ariability O f R adiologists (2000 to present) Supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute (R01 CA ;
Evidence-Based Medicine Diagnosis Component 2 / Unit 5 1 Health IT Workforce Curriculum Version 1.0 /Fall 2010.
What is shared decision making? Richard Thomson Professor of Epidemiology and Public Health Associate Dean for Patient and Public Engagement Decision Making.
Breast cancer 5 year survival rates (UK, 1975) by stage at diagnosis.
Breast Cancer Prevention Art or Science? Kristi McIntyre M.D. Texas Oncology 2005.
Using the BCSC Research Infrastructure as a Junior Investigator BCSC Meeting: Celebrating 15 Years of Accomplishment Bethesda, MD April 27, 2010 E. Shelley.
Unit 15: Screening. Unit 15 Learning Objectives: 1.Understand the role of screening in the secondary prevention of disease. 2.Recognize the characteristics.
Senior Statistician Per-Henrik Zahl, MA MD PhD
Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC): A Research Infrastructure sponsored by the National Cancer Institute Breast Cancer Risk Models William Barlow,
Incidence and prognosis of hepatocellular adenoma in Denmark Lars Bossen Departments of Hepatology and Gastroenterology and Clinical Epidemiology Aarhus.
Do all colorectal polyps require pathological examination? Aim To assess whether it is possible to omit the pathological examination of some polyps without.
Introduction to Tumor Board
Using SEER-Medicare Data to Enhance Registry Data to Assess Quality of Care Joan Warren Applied Research Program National Cancer Institute NAACCR June.
1 Cost efficacy of smoking cessation interventions Robert West University College London Logroño, October
Breast Density: Black, White and Shades of Gray Jen Rusiecki, MD VA Pittsburgh Health System Women’s Health Fellow AMWA Hot Topic 2016.
CT Screening for Lung Cancer vs. Smoking Cessation: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Pamela M. McMahon, PhD; Chung Yin Kong, PhD; Bruce E. Johnson; Milton.
Date of download: 5/28/2016 Copyright © 2016 American Medical Association. All rights reserved. From: Practical Issues in Counseling Healthy Women About.
From EBM to SDM: Michel Labrecque MD PhD Michel Cauchon MD Department of Family and Emergency Medicine Université Laval Teaching how to apply evidence.
Date of download: 5/31/2016 From: Tipping the Balance of Benefits and Harms to Favor Screening Mammography Starting at Age 40 Years: A Comparative Modeling.
Tumor Marker Phenotype Concordance in Second Primary Breast Cancer Monica Brown, MPH, PhD California Cancer Registry Mary Paré, RN, BS Sutter Cancer Center,
PSA screening Cost Conscious Project Kristopher Huston January 2016.
Mathematical modelling of male circumcision in sub-Saharan Africa predicts significant reduction in HIV prevalence Greg Londish 1, John Murray 1,2 1 School.
The impact of age on outcome in early-stage breast cancer 방사선종양학과 R2. 최진현.
Heather Brewster Breast Cancer - 6 Year Survivor.
Variation in place of death from cancer: studies in South East England Elizabeth Davies, Peter Madden, Victoria Coupland, Karen Linklater, Henrik Møller.
Screening Tests: A Review. Learning Objectives: 1.Understand the role of screening in the secondary prevention of disease. 2.Recognize the characteristics.
Risk Perception and Communication
Spartanburg Family Medicine Residency
Mammograms and Breast Exams: When to start /stop mammograms
What do Women Know About Breast Density?
From: Tipping the Balance of Benefits and Harms to Favor Screening Mammography Starting at Age 40 YearsA Comparative Modeling Study of Risk Ann Intern.
Presenter: Wen-Ching Lan
Epidemiologic Update on the HIV Epidemic in Ontario
Stamatia Destounis, MD, FACR, FSBI, FAIUM
Continuing Adjuvant Tamoxifen to 10 Years
by Silvia C Mendonca, Gary A Abel, and Georgios Lyratzopoulos
Breast Cancer Guideline Update – Sharp Focus on Who is at Risk
Predicting Breast Cancer by Applying Deep Learning to Linked Health Records and Mammograms The algorithm predicted future breast cancer based on the index.
OncotypeDX DCIS test use and clinical utility: A SEER population-based study Yao Yuan, PhD, MPH, Alison Van Dyke, MD, PhD, Serban Negoita, MD, DrPH & Valentina.
The Burden of Cancer in Nova Scotia an evaluation of loss in expectation of life Ron Dewar Registry and Analytics Presented to the joint NAACCR.
Fig 4 Population level predicted proportions of cutaneous melanocytic biopsy interpretations that would be verified by the consensus reference panel or.
Evidence Based Diagnosis
Oregon HPV Summit - June 2019 Nasreen Abdullah, MD, MPH
Presentation transcript:

Risk Prediction in Clinical Practice Joann G. Elmore MD, MPH SCCA June 11, 2014

Overview 1.Risk prediction models need to work well for individual patients to be helpful in individual counseling. 2. Both clinicians and patients (and the media) must understand the numeric information resulting from risk prediction models in order to use them effectively.

All Patients Risk Prediction Models Ultra Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk

All Patients Risk Prediction Models Ultra Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk

All Patients Ultra Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk Risk Prediction Models

ktool/

Validation of Gail Model at the Population Level The Gail model works well at the population level, with calibration calculated at 0.94 (B Rockhill, et al JNCI 2001) 1.01 (WE Barlow et al JNCI 2006) 1.03 (JA Tice et al Ann Intern Med 2008)

Validation of Gail Model Population vs. Individual Risk Population of women 0% to 100% Individual woman Either 0% or 100%

Ideal Model Estimated Five-year Risk of Breast Cancer Excellent Discrimination (c-statistic=1.0) (All Women with Risk > "X" Value get Cancer) Women with Cancer Women with no Cancer Proportion of Sample Low Risk X High Risk

Gail Model Estimated Five-year Risk of Breast Cancer C-statistic 0.58

80,755 50, ,000 Women with Cancer Women with no Cancer 1.67% cutoff Gail Model Example Estimated Five-year Risk of Breast Cancer Gail Risk Value

For every 47 women classified as high-risk only 1 will subsequently be diagnosed with breast cancer (Sensitivity 0.44; Specificity 0.66)      Performance of Gail Model using a 5-year cancer risk of 1.67%     

Clinical Experience “Doctor, what is my risk of getting breast cancer?” 41-year-old patient

What is a 41-year-old woman’s risk of breast cancer over the next 5 years? A 41-year-old white woman whose mother had breast cancer, who had one prior breast biopsy with atypical hyperplasia, who was age 40 at first live birth. What is her risk of a breast cancer diagnosis in the next 5 years? A. Less than 4% B. 10% C. 20% D. 50%

What is a 41-year-old woman’s risk of breast cancer over the next 5 years?

Radiologists’ Estimates of the 5-year risk of a breast cancer diagnosis. “A 41-year old white woman...” Calculated risk Egger, et al., Med Dec Making, 2005

Numeric Literacy Example Question High School Diploma or less Post- graduate degree How many heads in 1,000 coin flips? 62%86% Convert 1% to # of patients in 1,000 60%82% LM Schwartz and S Woloshin 2000; G Gigerenzer et al, 2008 Convert 1 in 1,000 to a percentage 23%27%

Gigerenzer G etal., Psychol Sci Public Interest 2007

Variation of Lumpectomy Rates by Hospital Referral Region ( ) Dartmouth Atlas

Effect of Nancy Reagan’s Mastectomy Nattinger et al. JAMA 1998

Screening for Cancer ( Treatment Decisions (e.g., Adjuvant!) Referral to Hospice (e.g., estimating 6-mo cut-off)

The Doctor (2014)

Conclusions 1.Risk prediction models work well in populations, but not (yet) for individual patients. 2. Implementation into clinical practice and communication about risks is challenging. 3. The impact and value of these models in clinical practice needs to be studied.

Thank you

The Doctor by Sir Luke Fildes (1887)