Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Sep;66(5):370-4.
doi: 10.3322/caac.21339. Epub 2016 Jan 19.

American Joint Committee on Cancer acceptance criteria for inclusion of risk models for individualized prognosis in the practice of precision medicine

Affiliations

American Joint Committee on Cancer acceptance criteria for inclusion of risk models for individualized prognosis in the practice of precision medicine

Michael W Kattan et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016 Sep.

Abstract

The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) has increasingly recognized the need for more personalized probabilistic predictions than those delivered by ordinal staging systems, particularly through the use of accurate risk models or calculators. However, judging the quality and acceptability of a risk model is complex. The AJCC Precision Medicine Core conducted a 2-day meeting to discuss characteristics necessary for a quality risk model in cancer patients. More specifically, the committee established inclusion and exclusion criteria necessary for a risk model to potentially be endorsed by the AJCC. This committee reviewed and discussed relevant literature before creating a checklist unique to this need of AJCC risk model endorsement. The committee identified 13 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria for AJCC risk model endorsement in cancer. The emphasis centered on performance metrics, implementation clarity, and clinical relevance. The facilitation of personalized probabilistic predictions for cancer patients holds tremendous promise, and these criteria will hopefully greatly accelerate this process. Moreover, these criteria might be useful for a general audience when trying to judge the potential applicability of a published risk model in any clinical domain. CA Cancer J Clin 2016;66:370-374. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Keywords: decision making; evidence-based medicine; patient preferences; personalized medicine.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Gospodarowicz M, et al. History and International Developments in Cancer Staging. Cancer Prev Control. 1998;2(6):262–268. - PubMed
    1. Asare EA, et al. Improving the quality of cancer staging. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65(4):261–263. - PubMed
    1. Gershenwald JE, Soong SJ, Balch CM. 2010 TNM staging system for cutaneous melanoma...and beyond. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(6):1475–1477. - PubMed
    1. Reilly B, Evans A. Translating clinical research into clinical practice: impact of using prediction rules to make decisions. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144(3):201–209. - PubMed
    1. Justice AC, Covinsky KE, Berlin JA. Assessing the Generalizability of Prognostic Information. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130:515–524. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources