Prospective validation of two mathematical models to calculate the risk of endometrial malignancy in patients with postmenopausal bleeding and sonographic endometrial thickness ≥4.5 mm

Sladkevicius, Povilas; Valentin, Lil

doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2016.02.019

Cited by 8 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One of the two risk models was externally validated in a large independent cohort (Pfeiffer et al, 2013). Only three of the fourteen diagnostic models were externally validated in a temporal validation study (Sladkevicius and Valentin, 2016;Plotti et al, 2017). No head to head comparison of developed models was found.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Information on handling of this missing data was limited. Nine (Pfeiffer et al, 2013;Wong et al, 2016;Husing et al, 2016;Burbos et al, 2010;Fortner et al, 2017;Weber et al, 1999;Burbos et al, 2011;Opolskiene et al, 2011;Sladkevicius and Valentin, 2016) out of fourteen studies mentioned the presence of missing data, of which four studies (Pfeiffer et al, 2013;Wong et al, 2016;Husing et al, 2016;Fortner et al, 2017) described the handling of the missing data. Handling varied from creating an indicator variable for the missing data to single, simple imputation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Seven studies included women presenting with postmenopausal bleeding. Postmenopausal bleeding was in four studies defined as vaginal bleeding after at least one year of spontaneous amenorrhoea (Burbos et al, 2010(Burbos et al, , 2011Opolskiene et al, 2011;Sladkevicius and Valentin, 2016). Two studies extended this definition with a minimum age of 40 years (Giannella et al, 2014;Madkour, 2017) and one study did not specify any definition (Wong et al, 2016).…”

Section: Study Designs and Populationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One study (Sladkevicius and Valentin, 2016) assessed the added value of endometrial thickness to a model that included only clinical predictors. Two external validation studies of diagnostic models were found.…”

Section: Model Performance and Validationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Both studies used a prospective cohort to validate the developed model with sample sizes of 80 women with cancer (Sladkevicius and Valentin, 2016) and 102 women with cancer (Plotti et al, 2017). One study described the performance of the models in the external data with the AUC, which was comparable to the performance in the original data(AUC of 0.89 and 0.91 (0.91 and 0.89 in the original data respectively)) (Sladkevicius and Valentin, 2016). The calibration was shown with calibration plots, without further specification of the intercept and slope.…”

Section: Model Performance and Validationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Prediction models for endometrial cancer for the general population or symptomatic women: A systematic review

Alblas

Velt

Pashayan

et al. 2018

Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To provide an overview of prediction models for the risk of developing endometrial cancer in women of the general population or for the presence of endometrial cancer in symptomatic women. Methods: We systematically searched the Embase and Pubmed database until September 2017 for relevant publications. We included studies describing the development, the external validation, or the updating of a multivariable model for predicting endometrial cancer in the general population or symptomatic women. Results: Out of 2756 references screened, 14 studies were included. We found two prediction models for developing endometrial cancer in the general population (risk models) and one extension. Eight studies described the development of models for symptomatic women (diagnostic models), one comparison of the performance of two diagnostic models and two external validation. Sample size varied from 60 (10 with cancer) to 201,811 (855 with cancer) women. The age of the women was included as a predictor in almost all models. The risk models included epidemiological variables related to the reproductive history of women, hormone use, BMI, and smoking history. The diagnostic models also included clinical predictors, such as endometrial thickness and recurrent bleeding. The concordance statistic (c), assessing the discriminative ability, varied from 0.68 to 0.77 in the risk models and from 0.73 to 0.957 in the diagnostic models. Methodological information was often limited, especially on the handling of missing data, and the selection of predictors. One risk model and four diagnostic models were externally validated. Conclusions: Only a few models have been developed to predict endometrial cancer in asymptomatic or symptomatic women. The usefulness of most models is unclear considering methodological shortcomings and lack of external validation. Future research should focus on external validation and extension with new predictors or biomarkers, such as genetic and epigenetic markers.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Designs and Populationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Model Performance and Validationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Model Performance and Validationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Prediction models for endometrial cancer for the general population or symptomatic women: A systematic review

Alblas

Velt

Pashayan

et al. 2018

Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

International Endometrial Tumor Analysis (IETA) terminology in women with postmenopausal bleeding and sonographic endometrial thickness ≥ 4.5 mm: agreement and reliability study

Sladkevicius

Installé

Bosch

et al. 2018

Ultrasound in Obstet & Gyne

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inter- and intrarater agreement and reliability when using IETA terminology were limited. This may have implications when assessing the association between a particular ultrasound feature and a specific histological diagnosis, because lack of reproducibility reduces the reliability of the association between a feature and the outcome. Future studies should investigate whether using fewer categories of variable or offering practical training could improve agreement and reliability. Copyright © 2017 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

show abstract

Prospective geographical and temporal validation of three published mathematical models to calculate risk of endometrial malignancy in patients with postmenopausal bleeding

Heremans

Bosch

Sladkevicius

et al. 2023

Ultrasound in Obstet & Gyne

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prospective validation of two mathematical models to calculate the risk of endometrial malignancy in patients with postmenopausal bleeding and sonographic endometrial thickness ≥4.5 mm

Cited by 8 publications

References 29 publications

Prediction models for endometrial cancer for the general population or symptomatic women: A systematic review

Prediction models for endometrial cancer for the general population or symptomatic women: A systematic review

International Endometrial Tumor Analysis (IETA) terminology in women with postmenopausal bleeding and sonographic endometrial thickness ≥ 4.5 mm: agreement and reliability study

Prospective geographical and temporal validation of three published mathematical models to calculate risk of endometrial malignancy in patients with postmenopausal bleeding

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About