ArticleCancer informatics2021
Pan-Cancer Survival Classification With Clinicopathological and Targeted Gene Expression Features.
Article in Cancer informatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Survival prediction of glioblastoma patients using machine learning and deep learning: a systematic review.BMC cancer · 2024Pooled it
- Pan-cancer analysis shapes the understanding of cancer biology and medicine.Cancer communications (London, England) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prognostication for patients with cancer is important for clinical planning and management, but remains challenging given the large number of factors that can influence outcomes. As such, there is a need to identify features that can robustly predict patient outcomes. We evaluated 8608 patient tumor samples across 16 cancer types from The Cancer Genome Atlas and generated distinct survival classifiers for each using clinical and histopathological data accessible to standard oncology workflows. For cancers that had poor model performance, we deployed a random-forest-embedded sequential forward selection approach that began with an initial subset of the 15 most predictive clinicopathological features before sequentially appending the next most informative gene as an additional feature. With classifiers derived from clinical and histopathological features alone, we observed cancer-type-dependent model performance and an area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) range of 0.65 to 0.91 across all 16 cancer types for 1- and 3-year survival prediction, with some classifiers consistently outperforming those for others. As such, for cancers that had poor model performance, we posited that the addition of more complex biomolecular features could enhance our ability to prognose patients where clinicopathological features were insufficient. With the inclusion of gene expression data, model performance for 3 select cancers (glioblastoma, stomach/gastric adenocarcinoma, ovarian serous carcinoma) markedly increased from initial AUROC scores of 0.66, 0.69, and 0.67 to 0.76, 0.77, and 0.77, respectively. As a whole, this study provides a thorough examination of the relative contributions of clinical, pathological, and gene expression data in predicting overall survival and reveals cancer types for which clinical features are already strong predictors and those where additional biomolecular information is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.