Systematic review: risk prediction models for metachronous advanced colorectal neoplasia after polypectomy.

IF 3.7 3区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
James H-E Kang, Emma Levine, Alex Fleet, Mc Stephen Padilla, Jeffrey K Lee, Hannah Harrison, Juliet A Usher-Smith
{"title":"Systematic review: risk prediction models for metachronous advanced colorectal neoplasia after polypectomy.","authors":"James H-E Kang, Emma Levine, Alex Fleet, Mc Stephen Padilla, Jeffrey K Lee, Hannah Harrison, Juliet A Usher-Smith","doi":"10.1111/jgh.16682","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aim: </strong>Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth leading cause of cancer death globally. CRC surveillance is a common indication for colonoscopy, representing a considerable burden for endoscopy services. Accurate identification of high-risk patients who would benefit from more intensive surveillance, as well as low-risk patients suitable for less frequent follow-up, could improve the effectiveness of surveillance protocols and resource use. Our aim was to identify and critically appraise published risk models for the occurrence of metachronous advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN), defined here as CRC or advanced adenomas detected during surveillance colonoscopy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed and EMBASE for primary research studies reporting the development and/or validation of multivariable models that predict metachronous ACN risk. Screening of studies for inclusion, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted by two researchers independently.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified nine studies describing nine risk models. Six models were internally validated and two were externally validated. No model underwent both internal and external validation. Good model discrimination (concordance index > 0.7) was reported for two models during internal validation and for one model during external validation. Calibration was acceptable when assessed (n = 4). Methodological limitations and a high risk of bias were observed for all studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Several published models predicting metachronous ACN risk showed some promise. However, adherence to methodological standards was limited, and only two models were externally validated. Head-to-head comparisons of existing models using populations independent from model development cohorts should be prioritized to identify models suitable for use in clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":15877,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jgh.16682","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aim: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth leading cause of cancer death globally. CRC surveillance is a common indication for colonoscopy, representing a considerable burden for endoscopy services. Accurate identification of high-risk patients who would benefit from more intensive surveillance, as well as low-risk patients suitable for less frequent follow-up, could improve the effectiveness of surveillance protocols and resource use. Our aim was to identify and critically appraise published risk models for the occurrence of metachronous advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN), defined here as CRC or advanced adenomas detected during surveillance colonoscopy.

Methods: We searched PubMed and EMBASE for primary research studies reporting the development and/or validation of multivariable models that predict metachronous ACN risk. Screening of studies for inclusion, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted by two researchers independently.

Results: We identified nine studies describing nine risk models. Six models were internally validated and two were externally validated. No model underwent both internal and external validation. Good model discrimination (concordance index > 0.7) was reported for two models during internal validation and for one model during external validation. Calibration was acceptable when assessed (n = 4). Methodological limitations and a high risk of bias were observed for all studies.

Conclusions: Several published models predicting metachronous ACN risk showed some promise. However, adherence to methodological standards was limited, and only two models were externally validated. Head-to-head comparisons of existing models using populations independent from model development cohorts should be prioritized to identify models suitable for use in clinical practice.

系统综述:息肉切除术后并发晚期结直肠肿瘤的风险预测模型。
背景和目的:结直肠癌(CRC)是全球第四大癌症死因。CRC 监测是结肠镜检查的常见适应症,给内镜检查服务带来了相当大的负担。准确识别可从更密集监测中获益的高危患者以及适合较少随访频率的低危患者,可提高监测方案的有效性和资源利用率。我们的目的是识别并严格评估已发表的晚期结直肠肿瘤(ACN)发生的风险模型,这里的晚期结直肠肿瘤是指在结肠镜监测过程中发现的 CRC 或晚期腺瘤:我们检索了 PubMed 和 EMBASE,以查找报告开发和/或验证预测晚期 ACN 风险的多变量模型的主要研究。筛选纳入研究、数据提取和偏倚风险评估由两名研究人员独立完成:我们确定了九项研究,描述了九种风险模型。其中六个模型经过内部验证,两个经过外部验证。没有一个模型同时经过内部和外部验证。在内部验证和外部验证过程中,分别有两个模型和一个模型被报告具有良好的模型区分度(一致性指数大于 0.7)。经评估,校准结果可以接受(n = 4)。所有研究都存在方法上的局限性和较高的偏倚风险:几项已发表的预测远期 ACN 风险的模型显示出一定的前景。然而,对方法学标准的遵守有限,只有两个模型经过了外部验证。应优先使用独立于模型开发队列的人群对现有模型进行正面比较,以确定适合用于临床实践的模型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
2.40%
发文量
326
审稿时长
2.3 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology is produced 12 times per year and publishes peer-reviewed original papers, reviews and editorials concerned with clinical practice and research in the fields of hepatology, gastroenterology and endoscopy. Papers cover the medical, radiological, pathological, biochemical, physiological and historical aspects of the subject areas. All submitted papers are reviewed by at least two referees expert in the field of the submitted paper.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信