Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32790207›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2020

Deep learning-based survival analysis for brain metastasis patients with the national cancer database.

Noah Bice, Neil Kirby, Tyler Bahr, Karl Rasmussen, Daniel Saenz, Timothy Wagner, Niko Papanikolaou, Mohamad Fakhreddine

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

8 authors.

Noah BiceDepartment of Radiological Sciences, UT Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, 78229, USA.
Neil KirbyDepartment of Radiological Sciences, UT Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, 78229, USA.
Tyler BahrDepartment of Radiological Sciences, UT Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, 78229, USA.
Karl RasmussenDepartment of Radiological Sciences, UT Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, 78229, USA.
Daniel SaenzDepartment of Radiological Sciences, UT Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, 78229, USA.
Timothy WagnerDepartment of Radiological Sciences, UT Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, 78229, USA.
Niko PapanikolaouDepartment of Radiological Sciences, UT Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, 78229, USA.
Mohamad FakhreddineDepartment of Radiological Sciences, UT Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, 78229, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePrognostic indices such as the Brain Metastasis Graded Prognostic Assessment have been used in clinical settings to aid physicians and patients in determining an appropriate treatment regimen. These indices are derivative of traditional survival analysis techniques such as Cox proportional hazards (CPH) and recursive partitioning analysis (RPA). Previous studies have shown that by evaluating CPH risk with a nonlinear deep neural network, DeepSurv, patient survival can be modeled more accurately. In this work, we apply DeepSurv to a test case: breast cancer patients with brain metastases who have received stereotactic radiosurgery.

methodsSurvival times, censorship status, and 27 covariates including age, staging information, and hormone receptor status were provided for 1673 patients by the NCDB. Monte Carlo cross-validation with 50 samples of 1400 patients was used to train and validate the DeepSurv, CPH, and RPA models independently. DeepSurv was implemented with L2 regularization, batch normalization, dropout, Nesterov momentum, and learning rate decay. RPA was implemented as a random survival forest (RSF). Concordance indices of test sets of 140 patients were used for each sample to assess the generalizable predictive capacity of each model.

resultsFollowing hyperparameter tuning, DeepSurv was trained at 32 min per sample on a 1.33 GHz quad-core CPU. Test set concordance indices of 0.7488 ± 0.0049, 0.6251 ± 0.0047, and 0.7368 ± 0.0047, were found for DeepSurv, CPH, and RSF, respectively. A Tukey HSD test demonstrates a statistically significant difference between the mean concordance indices of the three models.

conclusionOur results suggest that deep learning-based survival prediction can outperform traditional models, specifically in a case where an accurate prognosis is highly clinically relevant. We recommend that where appropriate data are available, deep learning-based prognostic indicators should be used to supplement classical statistics.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsDeep LearningRadiosurgeryHumansRetrospective StudiesSurvival Analysisbrain metastasisdeep learningmachine learningsurvival

Identifiers

PMID32790207
PMCPMC10081512

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.