Recommended Guidelines for the Conduct and Evaluation of Prognostic Studies in Veterinary Oncology

Abstract

There is an increasing need for more accurate prognostic and predictive markers in veterinary oncology because of an increasing number of treatment options, the increased financial costs associated with treatment, and the emotional stress experienced by owners in association with the disease and its treatment. Numerous studies have evaluated potential prognostic and predictive markers for veterinary neoplastic diseases, but there are no established guidelines or standards for the conduct and reporting of prognostic studies in veterinary medicine. This lack of standardization has made the evaluation and comparison of studies difficult. Most important, translating these results to clinical applications is problematic. To address this issue, the American College of Veterinary Pathologists' Oncology Committee organized an initiative to establish guidelines for the conduct and reporting of prognostic studies in veterinary oncology. The goal of this initiative is to increase the quality and standardization of veterinary prognostic studies to facilitate independent evaluation, validation, comparison, and implementation of study results. This article represents a consensus statement on the conduct and reporting of prognostic studies in veterinary oncology from veterinary pathologists and oncologists from around the world. These guidelines should be considered a recommendation based on the current state of knowledge in the field, and they will need to be continually reevaluated and revised as the field of veterinary oncology continues to progress. As mentioned, these guidelines were developed through an initiative of the American College of Veterinary Pathologists' Oncology Committee, and they have been reviewed and endorsed by the World Small Animal Veterinary Association.

Dissecting the Regulatory Microenvironment of a Large Animal Model of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: Evidence of a Negative Prognostic Impact of FOXP3+ T Cells in Canine B Cell Lymphoma

“…However, in common with our own observations, different studies have yielded different conclusions and have not all been able to demonstrate a prognostic impact of every one of the examined variables: factors such as the number and clinical heterogeneity of recruited patients and the nature of the specific end points examined influence the results of such outcome analyses [94]. More recent studies have stratified canine BCL patients by gene profiling, demonstrating that in common with human DLBCL two subtypes with different survival times – the germinal center B cell-like and the activated B cell-like – can be distinguished, the latter associated with a poorer prognosis [14], [15].…”

Prognostic Value of Histological Grading in Noninflammatory Canine Mammary Carcinomas in a Prospective Study With Two-Year Follow-Up

“…In common diseases, such as CMC, prognostic factors must demonstrate their ability to predict the outcome in well-controlled clinical prospective studies. 39 In contrast, because multiple variables can influence survival and confound associations between the prognostic marker of interest and survival, it is important to account for these variables by using multivariate analysis. 39 However, most of the prognostic factors of CMC evaluated in published studies have been tested in univariate studies.…”

“…39 In contrast, because multiple variables can influence survival and confound associations between the prognostic marker of interest and survival, it is important to account for these variables by using multivariate analysis. 39 However, most of the prognostic factors of CMC evaluated in published studies have been tested in univariate studies. 37 Moreover, many factors lose their prognostic abilities as independent factors when tested in multivariate analyses.…”

Prognostic Factors for Cutaneous and Subcutaneous Soft Tissue Sarcomas in Dogs

“…In addition, most studies evaluating prognostic factors for canine STS were conducted retrospectively. 3,5,7,11,23,32,46,[48][49][50] These studies can be troubled by a variety of biases and limitations, 55 including loss to follow-up, inability to review original slides, 11 lack of standard treatment and/or follow-up protocols, inability to confirm metastasis, and inability to provide accurate measurements of tumor size. 48 Another common drawback of STS prognostication studies is a lack of multivariable analysis.…”