Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34591891›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Integrating additional factors into the TNM staging for cutaneous melanoma by machine learning.

Charles Q Yang, Huan Wang, Zhenqiu Liu, Matthew T Hueman, Aadya Bhaskaran, Donald E Henson, Li Sheng, Dechang Chen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Charles Q YangDepartment of Surgery, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, United States of America.
Huan WangDepartment of Biostatistics, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, United States of America.
Zhenqiu LiuDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Penn State Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA, United States of America.
Matthew T HuemanDepartment of Surgical Oncology, John P. Murtha Cancer Center, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, United States of America.
Aadya BhaskaranDepartment of Quantitative Theory and Methods, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States of America.
Donald E HensonDeceased, was with The Department of Preventive Medicine & Biostatistics, F. Edward Hébert School of Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, United States of America.
Li ShengDepartment of Mathematics, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America.
Dechang ChenDepartment of Preventive Medicine & Biostatistics, F. Edward Hébert School of Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-5787-3441

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntegrating additional factors into the TNM staging system is needed for more accurate risk classification and survival prediction for patients with cutaneous melanoma. In the present study, we introduce machine learning as a novel tool that incorporates additional prognostic factors to improve the current TNM staging system. METHODS AND

findingsCancer-specific survival data for cutaneous melanoma with at least a 5 years follow-up were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program of the National Cancer Institute and split into the training set (40,781 cases) and validation set (5,390 cases). Five factors were studied: the primary tumor (T), regional lymph nodes (N), distant metastasis (M), age (A), and sex (S). The Ensemble Algorithm for Clustering Cancer Data (EACCD) was applied to the training set to generate prognostic groups. Utilizing only T, N, and M, a basic prognostic system was built where patients were stratified into 10 prognostic groups with well-separated survival curves, similar to 10 AJCC stages. These 10 groups had a significantly higher accuracy in survival prediction than 10 stages (C-index = 0.7682 vs 0.7643; increase in C-index = 0.0039, 95% CI = (0.0032, 0.0047); p-value = 7.2×10-23). Nevertheless, a positive association remained between the EACCD grouping and the AJCC staging (Spearman's rank correlation coefficient = 0.8316; p-value = 4.5×10-13). With additional information from A and S, a more advanced prognostic system was established using the training data that stratified patients into 10 groups and further improved the prediction accuracy (C-index = 0.7865 vs 0.7643; increase in C-index = 0.0222, 95% CI = (0.0191, 0.0254); p-value = 8.8×10-43). Both internal validation using the training set and temporal validation using the validation set showed good stratification and a high predictive accuracy of the prognostic systems.

conclusionsThe EACCD allows additional factors to be integrated into the TNM to create a prognostic system that improves patient stratification and survival prediction for cutaneous melanoma. This integration separates favorable from unfavorable clinical outcomes for patients and improves both cohort selection for clinical trials and treatment management.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsCohort StudiesCutaneous Malignant MelanomaFemaleHumansMachine LearningMaleMelanomaNeoplasm StagingPrognosisSEER ProgramSensitivity and SpecificitySkin NeoplasmsSurvival Analysis

Identifiers

PMID34591891
PMCPMC8483349

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.