Search

Objective: To derive and validate a set of clinical risk prediction algorithm to estimate the 10-year risk of 11 common cancers. Design: Prospective open cohort study using routinely collected data from 753 QResearch general practices in England. We used 565 practices to develop the scores and 188 for validation. Subjects: 4.96 million patients aged 25-84 years in the derivation cohort; 1.64 million in the validation cohort. Patients were free of the relevant cancer at baseline. Methods: Cox proportional hazards models in the derivation cohort to derive 10-year risk algorithms. Risk factors considered included age, ethnicity, deprivation, body mass index, smoking, alcohol, previous cancer diagnoses, family history of cancer, relevant comorbidities and medication. Measures of calibration and discrimination in the validation cohort. Outcomes: Incident cases of blood, breast, bowel, gastro-oesophageal, lung, oral, ovarian, pancreas, prostate, renal tract and uterine cancers. Cancers were recorded on any one of four linked data sources (general practitioner (GP), mortality, hospital or cancer records). Results: We identified 228 241 incident cases during follow-up of the 11 types of cancer. Of these 25 444 were blood; 41 315 breast; 32 626 bowel, 12 808 gastro-oesophageal; 32 187 lung; 4811 oral; 6635 ovarian; 7119 pancreatic; 35 256 prostate; 23 091 renal tract; 6949 uterine cancers. The lung cancer algorithm had the best performance with an R2 of 64.2%; D statistic of 2.74; receiver operating characteristic curve statistic of 0.91 in women. The sensitivity for the top 10% of women at highest risk of lung cancer was 67%. Performance of the algorithms in men was very similar to that for women. Conclusions: We have developed and validated a prediction models to quantify absolute risk of 11 common cancers. They can be used to identify patients at high risk of cancers for prevention or further assessment. The algorithms could be integrated into clinical computer systems and used to identify high-risk patients. Web calculator: There is a simple web calculator to implement the Qcancer 10 year risk algorithm together with the open source software for download (available at http://qcancer.org/1 0yr/). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To validate the performance of a set of risk prediction algorithms developed using the QResearch database, in an independent sample from general practices contributing to the Clinical Research Data Link (CPRD). Setting: Prospective open cohort study using practices contributing to the CPRD database and practices contributing to the QResearch database. Participants: The CPRD validation cohort consisted of 3.3 million patients, aged 25-99 years registered at 357 general practices between 1 Jan 1998 and 31 July 2012. The validation statistics for QResearch were obtained from the original published papers which used a one-third sample of practices separate to those used to derive the score. A cohort from QResearch was used to compare incidence rates and baseline characteristics and consisted of 6.8 million patients from 753 practices registered between 1 Jan 1998 and until 31 July 2013. Outcome measures: Incident events relating to seven different risk prediction scores: QRISK2 (cardiovascular disease); QStroke (ischaemic stroke); QDiabetes (type 2 diabetes); QFracture (osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture); QKidney (moderate and severe kidney failure); QThrombosis (venous thromboembolism); QBleed (intracranial bleed and upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage). Measures of discrimination and calibration were calculated. Results: Overall, the baseline characteristics of the CPRD and QResearch cohorts were similar though QResearch had higher recording levels for ethnicity and family history. The validation statistics for each of the risk prediction scores were very similar in the CPRD cohort compared with the published results from QResearch validation cohorts. For example, in women, the QDiabetes algorithm explained 50% of the variation within CPRD compared with 51% on QResearch and the receiver operator curve value was 0.85 on both databases. The scores were well calibrated in CPRD. Conclusions: Each of the algorithms performed practically as well in the external independent CPRD validation cohorts as they had in the original published QResearch validation cohorts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]