Abstract
In kidney transplantation, obtaining early information about the risk of graft failure helps physicians and patients anticipate a potential return to dialysis or retransplantation. Clinical prediction models are commonly used to obtain such risk estimation, but their performance needs to be continuously evaluated in various contexts. We propose an external validation study of the Kidney Transplant Failure Score in a pooled sample of 3,144 patients transplanted between 2010 and 2015 in France, Belgium, Norway and Canada. This score is used at the first transplantation anniversary to predict the probability of graft failure over the following seven years. The target population was defined as adult recipients of a kidney from a neurologically deceased donor without graft failure in the first year post-transplantation. Graft failure was defined as a return to dialysis. Around 10% of patients returned to dialysis, and 12.6% died during the seven-year follow-up. The KTFS authors fitted a Cox model and then adjusted its coefficients to maximize the discrimination, yielding the KTFS final version. We evaluated the performance of the initial and final versions of the KTFS, as well as the performance of another model we developed to consider death as a competing event. All KTFS versions yielded similarly good discrimination (area under the time-dependant receiver operating curve around from 0.79 [0.76-0.82] to 0.80 [0.77-0.84]), while the discrimination-optimized one presented important miscalibration. Clinical utility, assessed through net benefit, was also the lowest for the discrimination-optimized version. Our results warn against using the current KTFS version and recommend using either the initial coefficients or the competing risk-based ones instead.
Lay summary French nephrologists have used the Kidney Transplant Failure Score (KTFS) for nearly fifteen years to predict kidney graft failure eight years after the transplantation. Because predictive performance decreases over time, we first verified that the score could still predict correctly in France and also in other countries. Then, we compared the different KTFS formulas to find that the one currently used is suboptimal and should be avoided. Our findings show that the KTFS is still a reliable source of information for both kidney recipients and nephrologists when using its first version.
- Clinical prediction model
- Competing risk
- Geographical validation
- Graft failure
- Survival analysis
- Temporal validation
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
AC was supported by an IVADO postdoctoral fellowship #2022-7820036733. HC is a Fonds de recherche du Quebec senior scholar. RWP holds the Albert Boehringer I Chair. MES holds a tier 2 Canada Research Chair in Causal Inference and Machine Learning.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
All participants gave informed consent for research at the time of transplantation, and the University of Montreal clinical ethics committee gave ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Statement
All R codes are freely accessible on AC’s GitHub: https://github.com/ArthurChatton/ExtValKTFS. The EKiTE network restricts access to clinical data, as these are confidential and are subject to the General Data Protection Regulation. See Lorent et al.12 for information on requesting access to the data from each EKiTE center’s scientific and ethics committee. Data from the CHUM are available upon local ethics approval from HC (email: heloise.cardinal.chum{at}ssss.gouv.qc.ca). The protocol submitted to ethics committees was not published nor registered. However, a protocol request can be sent to AC for meta-research purposes (note that the protocol was written in French).
