Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35148170›Full record

ArticleJCO clinical cancer informatics2022

Developing a Prediction Model for Pathologic Complete Response Following Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer: A Comparison of Model Building Approaches.

Robert B Basmadjian, Shiying Kong, Devon J Boyne, Tamer N Jarada, Yuan Xu, Winson Y Cheung, Sasha Lupichuk, May Lynn Quan, Darren R Brenner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JCO clinical cancer informatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Immunotherapy in Breast Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

9 authors.

Robert B BasmadjianDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Foothills Medical Centre, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9545-0802
Shiying KongDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Foothills Medical Centre, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Devon J BoyneDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Foothills Medical Centre, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6301-2429
Tamer N JaradaDepartment of Oncology, University of Calgary, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9390-1742
Yuan XuDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Foothills Medical Centre, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2100-9437
Winson Y CheungDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Foothills Medical Centre, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-3679-4290
Sasha LupichukDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Foothills Medical Centre, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
May Lynn QuanDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Foothills Medical Centre, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Darren R BrennerDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Foothills Medical Centre, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-3027-290X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe optimal characteristics among patients with breast cancer to recommend neoadjuvant chemotherapy is an active area of clinical research. We developed and compared several approaches to developing prediction models for pathologic complete response (pCR) among patients with breast cancer in Alberta.

methodsThe study included all patients with breast cancer who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy in Alberta between 2012 and 2014 identified from the Alberta Cancer Registry. Patient, tumor, and treatment data were obtained through primary chart review. pCR was defined as no residual invasive tumor at surgical excision in breast or axilla. Two types of prediction models for pCR were built: (1) expert model: variables selected on the basis of oncologists' opinions and (2) data-driven model: variables selected by trained machine. These model types were fit using logistic regression (LR), random forests (RF), and gradient-boosted trees (GBT). We compared the models using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and integrated calibration index, and internally validated using bootstrap resampling.

resultsA total of 363 cases were included in the analyses, of which 86 experienced pCR. The RF and GBT fits yielded higher optimism-corrected area under the receiver operating characteristic curves compared with LR for the expert (RF: 0.70; GBT: 0.69; LR: 0.65) and data-driven models (RF: 0.71; GBT: 0.68; LR: 0.64). The LR fit yielded the lowest integrated calibration indices for the expert (LR: 0.037; GBT: 0.05; RF: 0.10) and data-driven models (LR: 0.026; GBT: 0.06; RF: 0.099).

conclusionOur models demonstrated predictive ability for pCR using routinely collected clinical and demographic variables. We show that machine learning fit methods can be used to optimize models for pCR prediction. We also show that additional variables beyond clinical expertise do not considerably improve predictive ability and may not be of value on the basis of the burden of data collection.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsNeoadjuvant TherapyBreastFemaleHumansMachine LearningROC Curve

Identifiers

PMID35148170
PMCPMC8846388

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.