Application of Machine Learning for Predicting Progression-Free and Overall Survival in Patients With Renal Cell Carcinoma.

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Caroline W Grant, Jerry Li, Swan Lin, Dana Nickens, Daniele Ouellet, Mohamed H Shahin
{"title":"Application of Machine Learning for Predicting Progression-Free and Overall Survival in Patients With Renal Cell Carcinoma.","authors":"Caroline W Grant, Jerry Li, Swan Lin, Dana Nickens, Daniele Ouellet, Mohamed H Shahin","doi":"10.1111/cts.70348","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Patient outcomes in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) remain poor, with five-year survival rates ranging from ~10% to 30%. Early projections of therapeutic outcomes could optimize precision medicine and accelerate drug development. While machine learning (ML) models integrating tumor growth inhibition (TGI) metrics have improved survival predictions over traditional models, their application in RCC remains unexplored. Herein, we used TGI metrics and baseline data to evaluate parametric (PM) and semi-parametric (SPM) survival models alongside ML approaches for predicting progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in 1839 RCC patients from four trials (evaluating sunitinib, axitinib, sorafenib, interferon-alpha, and avelumab + axitinib). Data were split into training (70%) and testing (30%), and feature selection was used to determine parsimonious and robust models. Bootstrap resampling (n = 100) was employed for models' validation, and performance was assessed using C-index and Integrated Brier Score. In brief, training data results demonstrated that tree-based ML models (random survival forest (RSF) and XGBoost) outperformed PM and SPM models in predicting PFS (C-index: 0.783-0.785 vs. 0.725-0.738 for PM and SPM; p < 0.05) and OS (C-index: 0.77-0.867 vs. 0.750-0.758 for PM and SPM; p < 0.05), with RSF achieving better prediction of PFS and OS using only 3-5 covariates, compared to 9-35 with other tested methods. Tree-based methods were also superior in the testing data. SHapley Additive exPlanations revealed nonlinear relationships among top predictors, including TGI metrics, underscoring the ability of tree-based methods to capture complex prognostic interactions. Further validation is required to confirm models' generalizability to additional therapies and patients with differing tumor severity.</p>","PeriodicalId":50610,"journal":{"name":"Cts-Clinical and Translational Science","volume":"18 10","pages":"e70348"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cts-Clinical and Translational Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cts.70348","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Patient outcomes in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) remain poor, with five-year survival rates ranging from ~10% to 30%. Early projections of therapeutic outcomes could optimize precision medicine and accelerate drug development. While machine learning (ML) models integrating tumor growth inhibition (TGI) metrics have improved survival predictions over traditional models, their application in RCC remains unexplored. Herein, we used TGI metrics and baseline data to evaluate parametric (PM) and semi-parametric (SPM) survival models alongside ML approaches for predicting progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in 1839 RCC patients from four trials (evaluating sunitinib, axitinib, sorafenib, interferon-alpha, and avelumab + axitinib). Data were split into training (70%) and testing (30%), and feature selection was used to determine parsimonious and robust models. Bootstrap resampling (n = 100) was employed for models' validation, and performance was assessed using C-index and Integrated Brier Score. In brief, training data results demonstrated that tree-based ML models (random survival forest (RSF) and XGBoost) outperformed PM and SPM models in predicting PFS (C-index: 0.783-0.785 vs. 0.725-0.738 for PM and SPM; p < 0.05) and OS (C-index: 0.77-0.867 vs. 0.750-0.758 for PM and SPM; p < 0.05), with RSF achieving better prediction of PFS and OS using only 3-5 covariates, compared to 9-35 with other tested methods. Tree-based methods were also superior in the testing data. SHapley Additive exPlanations revealed nonlinear relationships among top predictors, including TGI metrics, underscoring the ability of tree-based methods to capture complex prognostic interactions. Further validation is required to confirm models' generalizability to additional therapies and patients with differing tumor severity.

机器学习在预测肾癌患者无进展生存期和总生存期中的应用。
晚期肾细胞癌(RCC)患者的预后仍然很差,5年生存率约为10%至30%。对治疗结果的早期预测可以优化精准医疗并加速药物开发。虽然整合肿瘤生长抑制(TGI)指标的机器学习(ML)模型比传统模型改善了生存预测,但它们在RCC中的应用仍未探索。在此,我们使用TGI指标和基线数据来评估参数(PM)和半参数(SPM)生存模型以及ML方法,用于预测四项试验(评估舒尼替尼、阿西替尼、索拉非尼、干扰素- α和阿维单抗+阿西替尼)中1839名RCC患者的无进展(PFS)和总生存(OS)。数据分为训练(70%)和测试(30%),并使用特征选择来确定简约和稳健的模型。采用Bootstrap重采样(n = 100)对模型进行验证,并采用C-index和Integrated Brier Score对模型性能进行评估。简而言之,训练数据结果表明,基于树的ML模型(随机生存森林(RSF)和XGBoost)在预测PFS方面优于PM和SPM模型(PM和SPM的c -指数分别为0.783-0.785和0.725-0.738
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cts-Clinical and Translational Science
Cts-Clinical and Translational Science 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
2.60%
发文量
234
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical and Translational Science (CTS), an official journal of the American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, highlights original translational medicine research that helps bridge laboratory discoveries with the diagnosis and treatment of human disease. Translational medicine is a multi-faceted discipline with a focus on translational therapeutics. In a broad sense, translational medicine bridges across the discovery, development, regulation, and utilization spectrum. Research may appear as Full Articles, Brief Reports, Commentaries, Phase Forwards (clinical trials), Reviews, or Tutorials. CTS also includes invited didactic content that covers the connections between clinical pharmacology and translational medicine. Best-in-class methodologies and best practices are also welcomed as Tutorials. These additional features provide context for research articles and facilitate understanding for a wide array of individuals interested in clinical and translational science. CTS welcomes high quality, scientifically sound, original manuscripts focused on clinical pharmacology and translational science, including animal, in vitro, in silico, and clinical studies supporting the breadth of drug discovery, development, regulation and clinical use of both traditional drugs and innovative modalities.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信