Healthcare decision making, including regulatory and reimbursement decisions, is based on uncertain assessments of clinical and economic value. This arises from the evidence supporting those assessments being uncertain, incomplete, or even absent. Qualitative, structured expert elicitation (SEE) is a valuable tool for extracting expert knowledge about an uncertain quantity and formulating that knowledge as a probability distribution. This creates a useful input to decision modeling and support, particularly in areas with limited evidence, such as advanced therapy products, precision medicine, rare diagnoses, and other areas with high uncertainty.

Structured SEE protocols are used to improve the transparency, accuracy, and consistency of quantitative judgments from experts, limiting the effect of heuristics and biases. This task force report introduces 5 commonly used protocols for SEE (Sheffield elicitation framework; modified Delphi method; Cooke’s classical method; investigate, discuss, estimate, aggregate protocol; and the Medical Research Council reference protocol). It describes the common elements of SEE, discusses how these protocols differ in their implementation of those elements and illustrates the use of the protocols.

The report then reviews the relevant constraints on implementing SEE within the context of healthcare decision making and considers the strengths and weaknesses of these protocols in light of those considerations. Because this is an introductory report on an emerging topic, specific recommendations on practice are not made. However, there are broad recommendations based on the suitability of the different protocols in various decision contexts. The report concludes with recommendations for further research to better guide future practice.@en

Purpose. For individualized follow-up, accurate prediction of locoregional recurrence (LRR) and second primary (SP) breast cancer risk is required. Current prediction models employ regression, but with large data sets, machine-learning techniques such as Bayesian Networks (BNs) may be better alternatives. In this study, logistic regression was compared with different BNs, built with network classifiers and constraint- and score-based algorithms. Methods. Women diagnosed with early breast cancer between 2003 and 2006 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) (N = 37,320). BN structures were developed using 1) Bayesian network classifiers, 2) correlation coefficients with different cutoffs, 3) constraint-based learning algorithms, and 4) score-based learning algorithms. The different models were compared with logistic regression using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, an external validation set obtained from the NCR from 2007 and 2008 (N = 12,308), and subgroup analyses for a high- and low-risk group. Results. The BNs with the most links showed the best performance in both LRR and SP prediction (c-statistic of 0.76 for LRR and 0.69 for SP). In the external validation, logistic regression generally outperformed the BNs in both SP and LRR (c-statistic of 0.71 for LRR and 0.64 for SP). The differences were nonetheless small. Although logistic regression performed best on most parts of the subgroup analysis, BNs outperformed regression with respect to average risk for SP prediction in low- and high-risk groups. Conclusions. Although estimates of regression coefficients depend on other independent variables, there is no assumed dependence relationship between coefficient estimators and the change in value of other variables as in the case of BNs. Nonetheless, this analysis suggests that regression is still more accurate or at least as accurate as BNs for risk estimation for both LRRs and SP tumors.

@en