Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30582927›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of obstetrics and gynecology2019

Survival outcome prediction in cervical cancer: Cox models vs deep-learning model.

Koji Matsuo, Sanjay Purushotham, Bo Jiang, Rachel S Mandelbaum, Tsuyoshi Takiuchi, Yan Liu, Lynda D Roman

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 88 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
88citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
6.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

88 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 185 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

28 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Koji MatsuoDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA. Electronic address: koji.matsuo@med.usc.edu.
Sanjay PurushothamDepartment of Computer Science, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Bo JiangDepartment of Computer Science, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Rachel S MandelbaumDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Tsuyoshi TakiuchiDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Yan LiuDepartment of Computer Science, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Lynda D RomanNorris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
University of Southern California · US

Funding

USC/NORRIS COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CENTER (CORE) SUPPORTP30CA014089 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI MYLES G COCKBURN · 1985 to 2026
$181.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA014089
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHistorically, the Cox proportional hazard regression model has been the mainstay for survival analyses in oncologic research. The Cox proportional hazard regression model generally is used based on an assumption of linear association. However, it is likely that, in reality, there are many clinicopathologic features that exhibit a nonlinear association in biomedicine.

objectiveThe purpose of this study was to compare the deep-learning neural network model and the Cox proportional hazard regression model in the prediction of survival in women with cervical cancer. STUDY

designThis was a retrospective pilot study of consecutive cases of newly diagnosed stage I-IV cervical cancer from 2000-2014. A total of 40 features that included patient demographics, vital signs, laboratory test results, tumor characteristics, and treatment types were assessed for analysis and grouped into 3 feature sets. The deep-learning neural network model was compared with the Cox proportional hazard regression model and 3 other survival analysis models for progression-free survival and overall survival. Mean absolute error and concordance index were used to assess the performance of these 5 models.

resultsThere were 768 women included in the analysis. The median age was 49 years, and the majority were Hispanic (71.7%). The majority of tumors were squamous (75.3%) and stage I (48.7%). The median follow-up time was 40.2 months; there were 241 events for recurrence and progression and 170 deaths during the follow-up period. The deep-learning model showed promising results in the prediction of progression-free survival when compared with the Cox proportional hazard regression model (mean absolute error, 29.3 vs 316.2). The deep-learning model also outperformed all the other models, including the Cox proportional hazard regression model, for overall survival (mean absolute error, Cox proportional hazard regression vs deep-learning, 43.6 vs 30.7). The performance of the deep-learning model further improved when more features were included (concordance index for progression-free survival: 0.695 for 20 features, 0.787 for 36 features, and 0.795 for 40 features). There were 10 features for progression-free survival and 3 features for overall survival that demonstrated significance only in the deep-learning model, but not in the Cox proportional hazard regression model. There were no features for progression-free survival and 3 features for overall survival that demonstrated significance only in the Cox proportional hazard regression model, but not in the deep-learning model.

conclusionOur study suggests that the deep-learning neural network model may be a useful analytic tool for survival prediction in women with cervical cancer because it exhibited superior performance compared with the Cox proportional hazard regression model. This novel analytic approach may provide clinicians with meaningful survival information that potentially could be integrated into treatment decision-making and planning. Further validation studies are necessary to support this pilot study.

Indexed as

Deep LearningProportional Hazards ModelsAdenocarcinomaAdultCarcinoma, Squamous CellComorbidityFemaleHumansMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPilot ProjectsProgression-Free SurvivalRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentSurvival AnalysisUterine Cervical Neoplasmscervical cancerCox proportional hazarddeep learningsurvival prediction

Identifiers

PMID30582927
PMCPMC7526040
OpenAlexW2905889700

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.