↓ Skip to main content

Can A Multivariate Model for Survival Estimation in Skeletal Metastases (PATHFx) Be Externally Validated Using Japanese Patients?

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
Title
Can A Multivariate Model for Survival Estimation in Skeletal Metastases (PATHFx) Be Externally Validated Using Japanese Patients?
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, May 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11999-017-5389-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Koichi Ogura, Tabu Gokita, Yusuke Shinoda, Hirotaka Kawano, Tatsuya Takagi, Keisuke Ae, Akira Kawai, Rikard Wedin, Jonathan A. Forsberg

Abstract

Objective survival estimates are important when treating or studying outcomes in patients with skeletal metastases. One decision-support tool, PATHFx (www.pathfx.org) is designed to predict each patient's postsurgical survival trajectory at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months in patients undergoing stabilization for skeletal metastases. PATHFx has been externally validated in various western centers, but it is unknown whether it may be useful in Asian patient populations. We asked (1) whether the PATHFx models are as predictive in Japanese patients by estimating the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC); we considered an AUC greater than 0.7 as an adequate predictive value. We also (2) performed decision curve analysis at various times to determine whether and how PATHFx should be used clinically at those times. A Bayesian model is a statistical method to explore conditional, probabilistic relationships between variables to estimate the likelihood of an outcome using observed data. We applied the PATHFx Bayesian models to an independent dataset containing the records of patients who underwent skeletal stabilization for metastatic bone disease at one of five Japanese referral centers and had a followup longer than 12 months for survivors. Of 270 patients in the database, we excluded nine patients from analysis because their followup was less than 12 months, and finally we included 261 patients in the analysis. Data examined included age at the time of surgery, sex, indication for surgery (impending fracture or completed pathologic fracture), number of bone metastases (solitary or multiple), presence or absence of visceral or lymph node metastases, preoperative hemoglobin concentration, absolute lymphocyte count, and the primary oncologic diagnosis. We performed receiver operating characteristic curve analysis and estimated the AUC as a measure of discriminatory ability. Decision curve analysis was performed to determine if and how the models should be used in the clinical setting. The AUCs for the 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month models were 0.77 (95% CI, 0.63-0.86), 0.80 (95% CI, 0.72-0.87), 0.83 (95% CI, 0.77-0.89), and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.75-0.86), respectively. Decision analysis indicated that the models conferred a positive net benefit (above the lines assuming none or all survive at each time) although the CIs of the AUC for 1 month were wide, suggesting that this dataset could not adequately predict 1-month survival. Our findings show PATHFx is suitable for clinical use in Japan and may be used to guide surgical decision making or as a risk stratification method in support of clinical trials involving Japanese patients at 3, 6, and 12 months. More studies will be necessary to confirm the validity of the 1-month survival predictions of this mode. Other patient populations will need to be studied to confirm its usefulness in other non-Western and non-Japanese populations. Level II, prognostic study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Other 3 8%
Other 9 24%
Unknown 9 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 49%
Psychology 3 8%
Unspecified 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 12 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 May 2017.
All research outputs
#20,726,252
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#6,344
of 7,311 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#254,157
of 329,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#53
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,311 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,968 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.