The proposed 'concordance-statistic for benefit' provided a useful metric when modeling heterogeneous treatment effects.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical prediction models that support treatment decisions are usually evaluated for their ability to predict the risk of an outcome rather than treatment benefit-the difference between outcome risk with vs. without therapy. We aimed to define performance metrics for a model's ability to predict treatment benefit.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We analyzed data of the Synergy between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) trial and of three recombinant tissue plasminogen activator trials. We assessed alternative prediction models with a conventional risk concordance-statistic (c-statistic) and a novel c-statistic for benefit. We defined observed treatment benefit by the outcomes in pairs of patients matched on predicted benefit but discordant for treatment assignment. The 'c-for-benefit' represents the probability that from two randomly chosen matched patient pairs with unequal observed benefit, the pair with greater observed benefit also has a higher predicted benefit.

RESULTS: Compared to a model without treatment interactions, the SYNTAX score II had improved ability to discriminate treatment benefit (c-for-benefit 0.590 vs. 0.552), despite having similar risk discrimination (c-statistic 0.725 vs. 0.719). However, for the simplified stroke-thrombolytic predictive instrument (TPI) vs. the original stroke-TPI, the c-for-benefit (0.584 vs. 0.578) was similar.

CONCLUSION: The proposed methodology has the potential to measure a model's ability to predict treatment benefit not captured with conventional performance metrics.