TY - JOUR
T1 - Competing and Noncompeting Risk Models for Predicting Kidney Allograft Failure
AU - Truchot, Agathe
AU - Raynaud, Marc
AU - Helanterä, Ilkka
AU - Aubert, Olivier
AU - Kamar, Nassim
AU - Divard, Gillian
AU - Astor, Brad
AU - Legendre, Christophe
AU - Hertig, Alexandre
AU - Buchler, Matthias
AU - Crespo, Marta
AU - Akalin, Enver
AU - Pujol, Gervasio Soler
AU - Ribeiro de Castro, Maria Cristina
AU - Matas, Arthur J.
AU - Ulloa, Camilo
AU - Jordan, Stanley C.
AU - Huang, Edmund
AU - Juric, Ivana
AU - Basic-Jukic, Nikolina
AU - Coemans, Maarten
AU - Naesens, Maarten
AU - Friedewald, John J.
AU - Silva, Helio Tedesco
AU - Lefaucheur, Carmen
AU - Segev, Dorry L.
AU - Collins, Gary S.
AU - Loupy, Alexandre
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024
PY - 2025/4
Y1 - 2025/4
N2 - Key Points – Prediction models are becoming increasingly relevant in precision medicine. These models should be highly performant and not negatively affected by competing risk events. We thus aimed to carefully assess the effect of competing risks in allograft failure prediction. Background – Prognostic models are becoming increasingly relevant in clinical trials as potential surrogate end points and for patient management as clinical decision support tools. However, the effect 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 – We included 11, 046 kidney transplant recipients enrolled in ten 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 modeling 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 – Among 11, 046 recipients in the derivation and validation cohorts, 1497 (14%) lost their graft and 1003 (9%) died with a functioning graft after a median follow-up postrisk evaluation of 4.7 years (interquartile range, 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 older than 65 years), the findings suggest a trend toward moderately improved calibration when using a competing risk approach. Conclusions – Competing and noncompeting risk models performed similarly in predicting long-term kidney graft failure.
AB - Key Points – Prediction models are becoming increasingly relevant in precision medicine. These models should be highly performant and not negatively affected by competing risk events. We thus aimed to carefully assess the effect of competing risks in allograft failure prediction. Background – Prognostic models are becoming increasingly relevant in clinical trials as potential surrogate end points and for patient management as clinical decision support tools. However, the effect 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 – We included 11, 046 kidney transplant recipients enrolled in ten 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 modeling 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 – Among 11, 046 recipients in the derivation and validation cohorts, 1497 (14%) lost their graft and 1003 (9%) died with a functioning graft after a median follow-up postrisk evaluation of 4.7 years (interquartile range, 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 older than 65 years), the findings suggest a trend toward moderately improved calibration when using a competing risk approach. Conclusions – Competing and noncompeting risk models performed similarly in predicting long-term kidney graft failure.
KW - kidney failure
KW - kidney transplantation
KW - transplant outcomes
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85216938964
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85216938964#tab=citedBy
U2 - 10.1681/ASN.0000000517
DO - 10.1681/ASN.0000000517
M3 - Article
C2 - 40168162
AN - SCOPUS:85216938964
SN - 1046-6673
VL - 36
SP - 688
EP - 701
JO - Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
JF - Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
IS - 4
ER -