DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Assessing Misdiagnosis of Relapse in Patients with Gastric Cancer in Iran Cancer Institute Based on a Hidden Markov Multi-state Model

  • Zare, Ali (Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Tehran University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Mahmoodi, Mahmood (Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Tehran University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Mohammad, Kazem (Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Tehran University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Zeraati, Hojjat (Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Tehran University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Hosseini, Mostafa (Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Tehran University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Naieni, Kourosh Holakouie (Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Tehran University of Medical Sciences)
  • Published : 2014.05.15

Abstract

Background: Accurate assessment of disease progression requires proper understanding of natural disease process which is often hidden and unobservable. For this purpose, disease status should be clearly detected. But in most diseases it is not possible to detect such status. This study, therefore, aims to present a model which both investigates the unobservable disease process and considers the error probability in diagnosis of disease states. Materials and Methods: Data from 330 patients with gastric cancer undergoing surgery at the Iran Cancer Institute from 1995 to 1999 were analyzed. Moreover, to estimate and assess the effect of demographic, diagnostic and clinical factors as well as medical and post-surgical variables on transition rates and the probability of misdiagnosis of relapse, a hidden Markov multi-state model was employed. Results: Classification errors of patients in alive state without a relapse ($e_{21}$) and with a relapse ($e_{12}$) were 0.22 (95% CI: 0.04-0.63) and 0.02 (95% CI: 0.00-0.09), respectively. Only variables of age and number of renewed treatments affected misdiagnosis of relapse. In addition, patient age and distant metastasis were among factors affecting the occurrence of relapse (state1${\rightarrow}$state2) while the number of renewed treatments and the type and extent of surgery had a significant effect on death hazard without relapse (state2${\rightarrow}$state3)and death hazard with relapse (state2${\rightarrow}$state3). Conclusions: A hidden Markov multi-state model provides the possibility of estimating classification error between different states of disease. Moreover, based on this model, factors affecting the probability of this error can be identified and researchers can be helped with understanding the mechanisms of classification error.

Keywords

References

  1. Derakhshan M, Yazdanbod A, Sadjadi A, et al (2004). High incidence of adenocarcinoma arising from the right side of the gastric cardia in NW Iran. Gut, 53, 1262-6. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.2003.035857
  2. Dilege E, Mihmanli M, Demir U, et al (2009). Prognostic value of preoperative CEA and CA 19-9 levels in resectable gastric cancer. Hepato-Gastroenterol, 57, 674-7.
  3. Fan B, Xiong B (2010). Investigation of serum tumor markers in the diagnosis of gastric cancer. Hepato-Gastroenterol, 58, 239-45.
  4. Fauci AS (2008). Harrison's principles of internal medicine: McGraw-Hill Medical New York.
  5. Gruger J, Kay R, Schumacher M (1991). The validity of inferences based on incomplete observations in disease state models. Biometrics, 47, 595-605. https://doi.org/10.2307/2532149
  6. Haj-sheykholeslami A, Rakhshani N, Amirzargar A, et al (2008). Serum pepsinogen I, pepsinogen II, and gastrin 17 in relatives of gastric cancer patients: comparative study with type and severity of gastritis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 6, 174-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2007.11.016
  7. Inoue LYT, Etzioni R, Morrell C, Muller P (2008). Modeling disease progression with longitudinal markers. J Am Stat Ass, 103, 259-70. https://doi.org/10.1198/016214507000000356
  8. Jackson C (2002). Statistical models for the latent progression of chronic diseases using serial biomarkers. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
  9. Jackson CH (2011). Multi-state models for panel data: the msm package for R. J Stat Softw, 38, 1-29.
  10. Jackson CH, Sharples LD (2001). Hidden markov models for the onset and progression of bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome in lung transplant recipients. Stat in Med, 21, 113-28.
  11. Jackson CH, Sharples LD, Thompson SG, Duffy SW, Couto E (2003). Multistate markov models for disease progression with classification error. J The Roy Stat Soc: Series D (The Stat), 52, 193-209.
  12. Jafary M (2006). Evaluation the Sensitivity and Specificity of CA 19-9 Test in Gastric Adenocarcinoma. Scientific Journal Of Hamadan University Of Medical Sciences And Health Services.
  13. Kobayashi Y, Niwa Y, Tajika M, et al (2009). Serum tumor antigen REG4 as a useful diagnostic biomarker in gastric cancer. Hepato-Gastroenterol, 57, 1631-4.
  14. Kodera Y, Ito S, Yamamura Y, et al (2003). Follow-up surveillance for recurrence after curative gastric cancer surgery lacks survival benefit. Ann surg oncol, 10, 898-902. https://doi.org/10.1245/ASO.2003.12.009
  15. Layke JC, Lopez PP (2004). Gastric cancer: diagnosis and treatment options. Am family physician 69.
  16. Li Y, Yang Y, Lu M, Shen L (2010). Predictive value of serum CEA, CA19-9 and CA72. 4 in early diagnosis of recurrence after radical resection of gastric cancer. Hepato-gastroenterol, 58, 2166-70.
  17. Marrelli D, Pinto E, De Stefano A, et al (2001). Clinical utility of CEA, CA 19-9, and CA 72-4 in the follow-up of patients with resectable gastric cancer. J Am Surg, 181, 16-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9610(00)00549-3
  18. Ni X, Bai X, Mao Y, et al (2005). The clinical value of serum CEA, CA19-9, and CA242 in the diagnosis and prognosis of pancreatic cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol, 31, 164-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2004.09.007
  19. Nicolini A, Ferrari P, Duffy MJ, et al (2010). Intensive risk-adjusted follow-up with the CEA, TPA, CA19. 9, and CA72. 4 tumor marker panel and abdominal ultrasonography to diagnose operable colorectal cancer recurrences: effect on survival. Arch Surg, 145, 1177-83. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.2010.251
  20. Ogata K, Mochiki E, Yanai M, et al (2008). Factors correlated with early and late recurrence after curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Hepato-gastroenterol, 56, 1760-4.
  21. Peery AF, Dellon ES, Lund J, et al (2012). Burden of gastrointestinal disease in the United States: 2012 update. Gastroenterol, 143, 1179-87. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2012.08.002
  22. Putter H, Fiocco M & Geskus R (2007). Tutorial in biostatistics: competing risks and multistate models. Stat in Med, 26, 2389-430. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.2712
  23. Qiu M-z, Lin J-z, Wang Z-q, et al (2008). Cutoff value of carcinoembryonic antigen and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 elevation levels for monitoring recurrence in patients with resectable gastric adenocarcinoma. The Int J Biol Marker, 24, 258-64.
  24. Sadighi S, Raafat J, Mohagheghi M, Meemary F (2005). Gastric carcinoma: 5 year experience of a single institute. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 6, 195-6.
  25. Sleisenger MH, Fordtran JS (1993). Gastrointestinal disease: pathophysiology, diagnosis, management: Saunders Philadelphia.
  26. Takahashi Y, Takeuchi T, Sakamoto J, et al (2003). The usefulness of CEA and/or CA19-9 in monitoring for recurrence in gastric cancer patients: a prospective clinical study. Gastric Cancer, 6, 142-5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120-003-0240-9
  27. Titman A (2008). Model diagnostics in multi-state models of biological systems, PhD Thesis, University of Cambridge, UK.
  28. Titman AC, Sharples LD (2010). Model diagnostics for multi-state models. Stat Method Med Res, 19, 621-51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280209105541
  29. Ucar E, Semerci E, Ustun H, et al (2008). Prognostic value of preoperative CEA, CA 19-9, CA 72-4, and AFP levels in gastric cancer. Adv Ther, 25, 1075-84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-008-0100-4
  30. Whiting J, Sano T, Saka M, et al (2006). Follow-up of gastric cancer: a review. Gastric Cancer, 9, 74-81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120-006-0360-0
  31. Zare A, Mahmoodi M, Mohammad K, et al (2014). Assessing markov and time homogeneity assumptions in multi-state models: application in patients with gastric cancer undergoing surgery in the Iran cancer institute. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 441-7. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.1.441
  32. Zare A, Mahmoodi M, Mohammad K, et al (2013). Comparison between parametric and semi-parametric cox models in modeling transition rates of a multi-state model: application in patients with gastric cancer undergoing surgery at the Iran cancer institute. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 6751-5. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.11.6751
  33. Zare A, Mahmoodi M, Mohammad K, et al (2013). Survival analysis of patients with gastric cancer undergoing surgery at the Iran cancer institute: a method based on multi-state models. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 6369-73. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.11.6369
  34. Zeraati H, Mahmoodi M, Kazamnejad A, Mohammad K (2005). Postoperative life expectancy life gastric cancer patients and its associated factors. Saudi Med J, 26, 1203-7.
  35. Zeraati H, Mahmoudi M, Kazemnejad A, Mohammad K (2005). Postoperative survival in gastric cancer patients and its associated factors: a method based on a non-homogenous semi-markovian process. Int J Cancer Res, 1, 87-93. https://doi.org/10.3923/ijcr.2005.87.93
  36. Zeraati H, Mahmoudi M, Kazemnejad A, Mohammad K (2006). Postoperative survival in gastric cancer patients and its associated factors: a time dependent covariates model. Iranian J Public Health, 35, 40-6.
  37. Zeraati H, Mahmoudi M, Mohammad M, et al (2005). Postoperative survival in gastric cancer patients and its related factors. Journal of School of Public Health and Institute of Public Health Research, 3, 1-2.
  38. Zheng CX, Zhan WH, Zhao JZ, et al (2001). The prognostic value of preoperative serum levels of CEA, CA19-9 and CA72-4 in patients with colorectal cancer. World J Gastroenterol, 7, 431-4. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v7.i3.431