Cited by 3Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology ResearchPancreatitis Pathology and TreatmentMetabolism, Diabetes, and Cancer

A clinical prediction model to assess risk for pancreatic cancer among patients with pre-diabetes

Boursi, Shimon Ben, Finkelman, Brian, Giantonio, Bruce J., Haynes, Kevin, Rustgi, Anil K., Rhim, Andrew, Mamtani, Ronac, Yang, Yu-Xiao·2018·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

e16226 Background: A new diagnosis of diabetes mellitus (DM) has been observed within 2-3 years before the clinical presentation of a substantial proportion of sporadic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA) cases. The objective of the current study was to develop and internally validate a clinical prediction model for 3-year PDA risk among individuals with pre-diabetes defined as newly detected impaired fasting glucose (IFG). Methods: The study was conducted using the Health Improvement Network (THIN), a population-representative general practice medical records database from the UK. Eligible patients were aged ≥35 years, had a newly diagnosed IFG during follow-up and had ≥ 3 years of follow-up following the diagnosis of IFG. The dependent variable was incident PDA diagnosed within 3 years of IFG diagnosis. We evaluated a comprehensive list of PDA risk factors as well as variables related to glucose metabolism and performed multiple imputation for candidate predictors with missing values. We selected predictors using univariable analysis and a backward stepwise approach. A bootstrapping procedure was used for internal validation. Results: We identified 138,232 eligible patients with new-onset IFG. Among this cohort, 245 individuals (0.2%) were diagnosed with PDA within 3 years of IFG diagnosis. The median follow-up from IFG detection to PDA diagnosis was 326 days (IQR 120-588). The full multivariable prediction model included age, BMI, PPIs, total cholesterol, LDL, ALT and alkaline phosphatase. The AUC of the model was 0.71 (95%CI 0.67-0.75), and the p-value for the Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness of fit test was > 0.05. Internal validation of the model using bootstrapping procedure revealed minimal optimism of 0.001 (95%CI -0.009-0.01). Conclusions: We developed and internally validated a PDA prediction model based on clinical information routinely available at the initial appearance of IFG. This model exhibited good discrimination and calibration. The current model may substantially extend our ability to detect subclinical PDAs at an earlier stage when the tumor may potentially be more amenable to curative resection.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.2018.36.15_suppl.e16226

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A UK electronic health record model for new-onset diabetes identified a group with 5% 3-year predicted risk of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, with 11% sensitivity and 99.7% specificity (AUC 0.82).

    “Among individuals with new-onset diabetes, this model identifies a population with 5% 3-year predicted risk of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, with 11% sensitivity and 99·7% specificity (AUC 0·82).104”

    From Early detection of pancreatic cancer (2020) · cites this paper as [104]

  • Parametric models have been developed to identify high risk of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma among people with new-onset diabetes or pre-diabetes, with varying predictive performance.

    “Parametric models that can identify high risk for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma among individuals with new-onset diabetes, or new-onset pre-diabetes, have been developed, with varying predictive performances.103–106”

    From Early detection of pancreatic cancer (2020) · cites this paper as [104]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Boursi, S. B., Finkelman, B., Giantonio, B. J., Haynes, K., Rustgi, A. K., Rhim, A., Mamtani, R., & Yang, Y.-X.
Affiliations
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • Abramson Cancer Center (US)
  • The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2018-05-20
Volume
36
Issue
15_suppl
Pages
e16226-e16226
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W4238749319
Cited by
3
References
0
Citations by year
2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1
Type
conference abstract
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Clinical Oncology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Pancreatitis Pathology and Treatment
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Metabolism, Diabetes, and Cancer
Keywords
pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, prediabetes, impaired fasting glucose, clinical prediction model, risk factors, diabetes mellitus, glucose metabolism, internal validation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review