TY - JOUR T1 - Assessing performance and clinical usefulness in prediction models with survival outcomes: practical guidance for Cox proportional hazards models JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2022.03.17.22272411 SP - 2022.03.17.22272411 AU - David J McLernon AU - Daniele Giardiello AU - Ben Van Calster AU - Laure Wynants AU - Nan van Geloven AU - Maarten van Smeden AU - Terry Therneau AU - Ewout W Steyerberg AU - topic groups 6 and 8 of the STRATOS Initiative Y1 - 2022/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/03/18/2022.03.17.22272411.abstract N2 - Risk prediction models need thorough validation to assess their performance. Validation of models for survival outcomes poses challenges due to the censoring of observations and the varying time horizon at which predictions can be made. We aim to give a description of measures to evaluate predictions and the potential improvement in decision making from survival models based on Cox proportional hazards regression.As a motivating case study, we consider the prediction of the composite outcome of recurrence and death (the ‘event’) in breast cancer patients following surgery. We develop a Cox regression model with three predictors as in the Nottingham Prognostic Index in 2982 women (1275 events within 5 years of follow-up) and externally validate this model in 686 women (285 events within 5 years). The improvement in performance was assessed following the addition of circulating progesterone as a prognostic biomarker.The model predictions can be evaluated across the full range of observed follow up times or for the event occurring by a fixed time horizon of interest. We first discuss recommended statistical measures that evaluate model performance in terms of discrimination, calibration, or overall performance. Further, we evaluate the potential clinical utility of the model to support clinical decision making. SAS and R code is provided to illustrate apparent, internal, and external validation, both for the three predictor model and when adding progesterone.We recommend the proposed set of performance measures for transparent reporting of the validity of predictions from survival models.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study did not receive any fundingAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The survival R package, by using following R code: gbsg data(cancer, package="survival") rotterdam data(cancer, package="survival")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.YesI 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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data produced are available within the R package 'survival' ER -