Competing and Noncompeting Risk Models for Predicting Kidney Allograft Failure.


Journal

Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN
ISSN: 1533-3450
Titre abrégé: J Am Soc Nephrol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9013836

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
16 Oct 2024
Historique:
received: 31 05 2024
accepted: 11 10 2024
medline: 16 10 2024
pubmed: 16 10 2024
entrez: 16 10 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Prognostic models are becoming increasingly relevant in clinical trials as potential surrogate endpoints, and for patient management as clinical decision support tools. However, the impact of competing risks on model performance remains poorly investigated. We aimed to carefully assess the performance of competing risk and noncompeting risk models in the context of kidney transplantation, where allograft failure and death with a functioning graft are two competing outcomes. We included 11,046 kidney transplant recipients enrolled in 10 countries. We developed prediction models for long-term kidney graft failure prediction, without accounting (i.e., censoring) and accounting for the competing risk of death with a functioning graft, using Cox, Fine-Gray, and cause-specific Cox regression models. To this aim, we followed a detailed and transparent analytical framework for competing and noncompeting risk modelling, and carefully assessed the models' development, stability, discrimination, calibration, overall fit, clinical utility, and generalizability in external validation cohorts and subpopulations. More than 15 metrics were used to provide an exhaustive assessment of model performance. Among 11,046 recipients in the derivation and validation cohorts, 1,497 (14%) lost their graft and 1,003 (9%) died with a functioning graft after a median follow-up post-risk evaluation of 4.7 years (IQR 2.7-7.0). The cumulative incidence of graft loss was similarly estimated by Kaplan-Meier and Aalen-Johansen methods (17% versus 16% in the derivation cohort). Cox and competing risk models showed similar and stable risk estimates for predicting long-term graft failure (average mean absolute prediction error of 0.0140, 0.0138 and 0.0135 for Cox, Fine-Gray, and cause-specific Cox models, respectively). Discrimination and overall fit were comparable in the validation cohorts, with concordance index ranging from 0.76 to 0.87. Across various subpopulations and clinical scenarios, the models performed well and similarly, although in some high-risk groups (such as donors over 65 years old), the findings suggest a trend towards moderately improved calibration when using a competing risk approach. Competing and noncompeting risk models performed similarly in predicting long-term kidney graft failure.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Prognostic models are becoming increasingly relevant in clinical trials as potential surrogate endpoints, and for patient management as clinical decision support tools. However, the impact of competing risks on model performance remains poorly investigated. We aimed to carefully assess the performance of competing risk and noncompeting risk models in the context of kidney transplantation, where allograft failure and death with a functioning graft are two competing outcomes.
METHODS METHODS
We included 11,046 kidney transplant recipients enrolled in 10 countries. We developed prediction models for long-term kidney graft failure prediction, without accounting (i.e., censoring) and accounting for the competing risk of death with a functioning graft, using Cox, Fine-Gray, and cause-specific Cox regression models. To this aim, we followed a detailed and transparent analytical framework for competing and noncompeting risk modelling, and carefully assessed the models' development, stability, discrimination, calibration, overall fit, clinical utility, and generalizability in external validation cohorts and subpopulations. More than 15 metrics were used to provide an exhaustive assessment of model performance.
RESULTS RESULTS
Among 11,046 recipients in the derivation and validation cohorts, 1,497 (14%) lost their graft and 1,003 (9%) died with a functioning graft after a median follow-up post-risk evaluation of 4.7 years (IQR 2.7-7.0). The cumulative incidence of graft loss was similarly estimated by Kaplan-Meier and Aalen-Johansen methods (17% versus 16% in the derivation cohort). Cox and competing risk models showed similar and stable risk estimates for predicting long-term graft failure (average mean absolute prediction error of 0.0140, 0.0138 and 0.0135 for Cox, Fine-Gray, and cause-specific Cox models, respectively). Discrimination and overall fit were comparable in the validation cohorts, with concordance index ranging from 0.76 to 0.87. Across various subpopulations and clinical scenarios, the models performed well and similarly, although in some high-risk groups (such as donors over 65 years old), the findings suggest a trend towards moderately improved calibration when using a competing risk approach.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Competing and noncompeting risk models performed similarly in predicting long-term kidney graft failure.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39412887
doi: 10.1681/ASN.0000000517
pii: 00001751-990000000-00448
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 by the American Society of Nephrology.

Auteurs

Agathe Truchot (A)

Université de Paris Cité, INSERM, PARCC, Paris Institute for Transplantation and Organ Regeneration, F-75015 Paris, France.

Marc Raynaud (M)

Université de Paris Cité, INSERM, PARCC, Paris Institute for Transplantation and Organ Regeneration, F-75015 Paris, France.

Ilkka Helanterä (I)

Department of Transplantation and Liver Surgery, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.

Olivier Aubert (O)

Université de Paris Cité, INSERM, PARCC, Paris Institute for Transplantation and Organ Regeneration, F-75015 Paris, France.
Kidney Transplant Department, Necker Hospital, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.

Nassim Kamar (N)

Department of Nephrology and Organ Transplantation, Toulouse Rangueil University Hospital, INSERM UMR 1291, Toulouse Institute for Infectious and Inflammatory Diseases (Infinity), University Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France.

Gillian Divard (G)

Kidney Transplant Department, Saint-Louis Hospital, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.

Brad Astor (B)

Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.

Christophe Legendre (C)

Kidney Transplant Department, Necker Hospital, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.

Alexandre Hertig (A)

Department of Nephrology and Kidney Transplantation, Foch Hospital, Suresnes, France.

Matthias Buchler (M)

Bretonneau Hospital, Nephrology and Immunology Department, Tours, France.

Marta Crespo (M)

Department of Nephrology, Hospital del Mar Barcelona, Spain.

Enver Akalin (E)

Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Renal Division Montefiore Medical Center, Kidney Transplantation Program, Bronx, NY, USA.

Gervasio Soler Pujol (GS)

Unidad de Trasplante Renopancreas, Centro de Educacion Medica e Investigaciones Clinicas Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Maria Cristina Ribeiro de Castro (MC)

Hospital das Clinicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Sao Paulo, Renal Transplantation Service Sao Paulo, Brazil.

Arthur J Matas (AJ)

Division of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.

Camilo Ulloa (C)

Clinica Alemana de Santiago, Santiago, Chile.

Stanley C Jordan (SC)

Department of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, Comprehensive Transplant Center, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Edmund Huang (E)

Department of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, Comprehensive Transplant Center, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Ivana Juric (I)

Department of Nephrology, Arterial Hypertension, Dialysis and Transplantation, University Hospital Center Zagreb, School of Medicine University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.

Nikolina Basic-Jukic (N)

Department of Nephrology, Arterial Hypertension, Dialysis and Transplantation, University Hospital Center Zagreb, School of Medicine University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.

Maarten Coemans (M)

Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Transplantation, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Maarten Naesens (M)

Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Transplantation, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

John J Friedewald (JJ)

Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.

Helio Tedesco Silva (HT)

Universidade Federal de Sao Paulo, Hospital do Rim, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Sao Paulo, Brazil.

Carmen Lefaucheur (C)

Kidney Transplant Department, Saint-Louis Hospital, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.

Dorry L Segev (DL)

Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Gary S Collins (GS)

Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Alexandre Loupy (A)

Université de Paris Cité, INSERM, PARCC, Paris Institute for Transplantation and Organ Regeneration, F-75015 Paris, France.
Kidney Transplant Department, Necker Hospital, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.

Classifications MeSH