Filipa Lynce, Samuel M Niman, Megumi Kai, Sean Ryan Ma, Elizabeth Troll, Li Li, Kathy D Miller, Reshma Jagsi, Ginny Mason, Beth A Overmoyer, H T Carisa Le-Petross, Faina Nakhlis, Savitri Krishnamurthy, Beth T Harrison, Susie X Sun, Eren D Yeh, Jennifer R Bellon, Laura E Warren, Michael C Stauder, Meredith M Regan, Wendy A Woodward
{"title":"多机构数据集的开发,以验证一种新的炎性乳腺癌诊断评分","authors":"Filipa Lynce, Samuel M Niman, Megumi Kai, Sean Ryan Ma, Elizabeth Troll, Li Li, Kathy D Miller, Reshma Jagsi, Ginny Mason, Beth A Overmoyer, H T Carisa Le-Petross, Faina Nakhlis, Savitri Krishnamurthy, Beth T Harrison, Susie X Sun, Eren D Yeh, Jennifer R Bellon, Laura E Warren, Michael C Stauder, Meredith M Regan, Wendy A Woodward","doi":"10.1093/jnci/djaf088","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose Susan G. Komen, the Inflammatory Breast Cancer (IBC) Research Foundation, and the Milburn Foundation convened patient advocates, clinicians, and researchers to propose novel quantitative scoring rubrics for IBC diagnosis. In this study, we developed a multi-institutional clinical dataset to test and validate the proposed scoring system. Methods IBC (N = 988) and non-IBC (N = 332) cases were identified at two institutions with dedicated multidisciplinary IBC programs. The non-IBC cohort included consecutive cT4b and cT4c patients. Standard operating procedures (SOPs) were developed for all ambiguous findings and languages. Three different methods were used for the imputation of missing data, resulting in three separate datasets. The sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) were used to assess the discrimination of the proposed scoring rubric. Results The distribution of “true IBC” cases was 19.7% very likely IBC, 49.1% strong possibility of IBC, 0.4% weak possibility of IBC, 0.1% very unlikely IBC, and 30.7% unknown; corresponding groupings for true non-IBC cases were 0.6% very likely IBC, 51.8% strong possibility of IBC, 9.9% weak possibility of IBC, 2.1% very unlikely IBC, and 35.5% unknown. AUC-ROC values for missing data imputation methods were similar (0.83–0.84); exploratory score refinement improved the AUC-ROC to 0.88–0.89. Conclusion Using the largest multi-institutional IBC clinical database to date, the score has been validated and is available for clinical use at https://www.komen.org/ibc-calc to assist healthcare providers and their patients in IBC diagnosis. Exploratory score refinement demonstrates the potential to increase specificity; however, any change requires separate validation.","PeriodicalId":501635,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the National Cancer Institute","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Development of a Multi-Institutional Dataset to Validate a Novel Inflammatory Breast Cancer Diagnostic Score\",\"authors\":\"Filipa Lynce, Samuel M Niman, Megumi Kai, Sean Ryan Ma, Elizabeth Troll, Li Li, Kathy D Miller, Reshma Jagsi, Ginny Mason, Beth A Overmoyer, H T Carisa Le-Petross, Faina Nakhlis, Savitri Krishnamurthy, Beth T Harrison, Susie X Sun, Eren D Yeh, Jennifer R Bellon, Laura E Warren, Michael C Stauder, Meredith M Regan, Wendy A Woodward\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jnci/djaf088\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose Susan G. Komen, the Inflammatory Breast Cancer (IBC) Research Foundation, and the Milburn Foundation convened patient advocates, clinicians, and researchers to propose novel quantitative scoring rubrics for IBC diagnosis. In this study, we developed a multi-institutional clinical dataset to test and validate the proposed scoring system. Methods IBC (N = 988) and non-IBC (N = 332) cases were identified at two institutions with dedicated multidisciplinary IBC programs. The non-IBC cohort included consecutive cT4b and cT4c patients. Standard operating procedures (SOPs) were developed for all ambiguous findings and languages. Three different methods were used for the imputation of missing data, resulting in three separate datasets. The sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) were used to assess the discrimination of the proposed scoring rubric. Results The distribution of “true IBC” cases was 19.7% very likely IBC, 49.1% strong possibility of IBC, 0.4% weak possibility of IBC, 0.1% very unlikely IBC, and 30.7% unknown; corresponding groupings for true non-IBC cases were 0.6% very likely IBC, 51.8% strong possibility of IBC, 9.9% weak possibility of IBC, 2.1% very unlikely IBC, and 35.5% unknown. AUC-ROC values for missing data imputation methods were similar (0.83–0.84); exploratory score refinement improved the AUC-ROC to 0.88–0.89. Conclusion Using the largest multi-institutional IBC clinical database to date, the score has been validated and is available for clinical use at https://www.komen.org/ibc-calc to assist healthcare providers and their patients in IBC diagnosis. Exploratory score refinement demonstrates the potential to increase specificity; however, any change requires separate validation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501635,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the National Cancer Institute\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the National Cancer Institute\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djaf088\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the National Cancer Institute","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djaf088","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
Susan G. Komen,炎性乳腺癌(IBC)研究基金会和Milburn基金会召集患者倡导者,临床医生和研究人员提出新的IBC诊断定量评分标准。在这项研究中,我们开发了一个多机构临床数据集来测试和验证提出的评分系统。方法在两所有专门的多学科IBC项目的机构中鉴定IBC (N = 988)和非IBC (N = 332)病例。非ibc队列包括连续的cT4b和cT4c患者。标准操作程序(sop)是为所有含糊的发现和语言制定的。三种不同的方法用于缺失数据的插入,导致三个独立的数据集。采用受试者操作者特征曲线(AUC-ROC)下的敏感性、特异性和面积来评估所提出评分标准的区分性。结果“真IBC”病例的分布为:极可能为19.7%,极可能为49.1%,弱可能为0.4%,极不可能为0.1%,未知为30.7%;真实非IBC病例的相应分组为:非常可能为0.6%,非常可能为51.8%,弱可能为9.9%,非常不可能为2.1%,未知为35.5%。缺失数据输入方法的AUC-ROC值相似(0.83-0.84);探索性评分细化将AUC-ROC提高至0.88-0.89。使用迄今为止最大的多机构IBC临床数据库,该评分已经过验证,并可在https://www.komen.org/ibc-calc上用于临床使用,以帮助医疗保健提供者及其患者诊断IBC。探索性评分细化显示了增加特异性的潜力;但是,任何更改都需要单独的验证。
Development of a Multi-Institutional Dataset to Validate a Novel Inflammatory Breast Cancer Diagnostic Score
Purpose Susan G. Komen, the Inflammatory Breast Cancer (IBC) Research Foundation, and the Milburn Foundation convened patient advocates, clinicians, and researchers to propose novel quantitative scoring rubrics for IBC diagnosis. In this study, we developed a multi-institutional clinical dataset to test and validate the proposed scoring system. Methods IBC (N = 988) and non-IBC (N = 332) cases were identified at two institutions with dedicated multidisciplinary IBC programs. The non-IBC cohort included consecutive cT4b and cT4c patients. Standard operating procedures (SOPs) were developed for all ambiguous findings and languages. Three different methods were used for the imputation of missing data, resulting in three separate datasets. The sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) were used to assess the discrimination of the proposed scoring rubric. Results The distribution of “true IBC” cases was 19.7% very likely IBC, 49.1% strong possibility of IBC, 0.4% weak possibility of IBC, 0.1% very unlikely IBC, and 30.7% unknown; corresponding groupings for true non-IBC cases were 0.6% very likely IBC, 51.8% strong possibility of IBC, 9.9% weak possibility of IBC, 2.1% very unlikely IBC, and 35.5% unknown. AUC-ROC values for missing data imputation methods were similar (0.83–0.84); exploratory score refinement improved the AUC-ROC to 0.88–0.89. Conclusion Using the largest multi-institutional IBC clinical database to date, the score has been validated and is available for clinical use at https://www.komen.org/ibc-calc to assist healthcare providers and their patients in IBC diagnosis. Exploratory score refinement demonstrates the potential to increase specificity; however, any change requires separate validation.