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
Comparative Study
. 2018 Mar 6;118(5):750-759.
doi: 10.1038/bjc.2017.463. Epub 2018 Jan 30.

External validation of risk prediction models for incident colorectal cancer using UK Biobank

J A Usher-Smith  1 , A Harshfield  1 , C L Saunders  1 , S J Sharp  2 , J Emery  3 , F M Walter  1 , K Muir  4 , S J Griffin  1   2
Affiliations
Comparative Study

External validation of risk prediction models for incident colorectal cancer using UK Biobank

J A Usher-Smith et al. Br J Cancer. .

Erratum in

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to compare and externally validate risk scores developed to predict incident colorectal cancer (CRC) that include variables routinely available or easily obtainable via self-completed questionnaire.

Methods: External validation of fourteen risk models from a previous systematic review in 373 112 men and women within the UK Biobank cohort with 5-year follow-up, no prior history of CRC and data for incidence of CRC through linkage to national cancer registries.

Results: There were 1719 (0.46%) cases of incident CRC. The performance of the risk models varied substantially. In men, the QCancer10 model and models by Tao, Driver and Ma all had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) between 0.67 and 0.70. Discrimination was lower in women: the QCancer10, Wells, Tao, Guesmi and Ma models were the best performing with AUCs between 0.63 and 0.66. Assessment of calibration was possible for six models in men and women. All would require country-specific recalibration if estimates of absolute risks were to be given to individuals.

Conclusions: Several risk models based on easily obtainable data have relatively good discrimination in a UK population. Modelling studies are now required to estimate the potential health benefits and cost-effectiveness of implementing stratified risk-based CRC screening.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

All researchers were independent of the funding body and the funder had no role in data collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or decision to submit the article for publication. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Model discrimination. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the risk models in (A) men and (B) women. *Models originally only developed in men.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Model calibration. Plots of observed and predicted 5-year risk of colorectal cancer for (A) men and (B) women. *Models originally only developed in men.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Allen N, Sudlow C, Downey P, Peakman T, Danesh J, Elliott P, Gallacher J, Green J, Matthews P, Pell J, Sprosen T, Collins R (2012) UK Biobank: current status and what it means for epidemiology. Heal Policy Technol 1: 123–126.
    1. Almurshed KS (2009) Colorectal cancer: case-control study of sociodemographic, lifestyle and anthropometric parameters in Riyadh. East Mediterr Heal J 15: 817–826. - PubMed
    1. Amir E, Freedman OC, Seruga B, Evans DG (2010) Assessing women at high risk of breast cancer: a review of risk assessment models. J Natl Cancer Inst 102: 680–691. - PubMed
    1. Aronson SJ, Rehm HL (2015) Building the foundation for genomics in precision medicine. Nature 526: 336–342. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bae JM, Kim JH, Cho N-Y, Kim T-Y, Kang GH (2013) Prognostic implication of the CpG island methylator phenotype in colorectal cancers depends on tumour location. Br J Cancer 109: 1004–1012. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types