Cargando…

Comparison of deep learning‐based recurrence‐free survival with random survival forest and Cox proportional hazard models in Stage‐I NSCLC patients

BACKGROUND: The curative treatment for Stage I non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is surgical resection. Even for Stage I patients, the probability of recurrence after curative treatment is around 20%. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we included 268 operated Stage I NSCLC patients between Janu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kar, İrem, Kocaman, Gökhan, İbrahimov, Farrukh, Enön, Serkan, Coşgun, Erdal, Elhan, Atilla Halil
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10557877/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37644818
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.6479
_version_ 1785117167471034368
author Kar, İrem
Kocaman, Gökhan
İbrahimov, Farrukh
Enön, Serkan
Coşgun, Erdal
Elhan, Atilla Halil
author_facet Kar, İrem
Kocaman, Gökhan
İbrahimov, Farrukh
Enön, Serkan
Coşgun, Erdal
Elhan, Atilla Halil
author_sort Kar, İrem
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The curative treatment for Stage I non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is surgical resection. Even for Stage I patients, the probability of recurrence after curative treatment is around 20%. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we included 268 operated Stage I NSCLC patients between January 2008 and June 2018 to analyze the prognostic factors (pathological stage, histological type, number of sampled mediastinal lymph node stations, type of resection, SUVmax of the lesion) that may affect relapse with three different methods, Cox proportional hazard (CoxPH), random survival forest (RSF), DeepSurv, and to compare the performance of these methods with Harrell's C‐index. The dataset was randomly split into two sets, training and test sets. RESULTS: In the training set, DeepSurv showed the best performance among the three models, the C‐index of the training set was 0.832, followed by RSF (0.675) and CoxPH (0.672). In the test set, RSF showed the best performance among the three models, followed by DeepSurv with 0.677 and CoxPH methods with 0.625. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, machine‐learning techniques can be useful in predicting recurrence for lung cancer and guide clinicians both in choosing the adjuvant treatment options and best follow‐up programs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10557877
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105578772023-10-07 Comparison of deep learning‐based recurrence‐free survival with random survival forest and Cox proportional hazard models in Stage‐I NSCLC patients Kar, İrem Kocaman, Gökhan İbrahimov, Farrukh Enön, Serkan Coşgun, Erdal Elhan, Atilla Halil Cancer Med Research Articles BACKGROUND: The curative treatment for Stage I non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is surgical resection. Even for Stage I patients, the probability of recurrence after curative treatment is around 20%. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we included 268 operated Stage I NSCLC patients between January 2008 and June 2018 to analyze the prognostic factors (pathological stage, histological type, number of sampled mediastinal lymph node stations, type of resection, SUVmax of the lesion) that may affect relapse with three different methods, Cox proportional hazard (CoxPH), random survival forest (RSF), DeepSurv, and to compare the performance of these methods with Harrell's C‐index. The dataset was randomly split into two sets, training and test sets. RESULTS: In the training set, DeepSurv showed the best performance among the three models, the C‐index of the training set was 0.832, followed by RSF (0.675) and CoxPH (0.672). In the test set, RSF showed the best performance among the three models, followed by DeepSurv with 0.677 and CoxPH methods with 0.625. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, machine‐learning techniques can be useful in predicting recurrence for lung cancer and guide clinicians both in choosing the adjuvant treatment options and best follow‐up programs. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023-08-29 /pmc/articles/PMC10557877/ /pubmed/37644818 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.6479 Text en © 2023 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Articles
Kar, İrem
Kocaman, Gökhan
İbrahimov, Farrukh
Enön, Serkan
Coşgun, Erdal
Elhan, Atilla Halil
Comparison of deep learning‐based recurrence‐free survival with random survival forest and Cox proportional hazard models in Stage‐I NSCLC patients
title Comparison of deep learning‐based recurrence‐free survival with random survival forest and Cox proportional hazard models in Stage‐I NSCLC patients
title_full Comparison of deep learning‐based recurrence‐free survival with random survival forest and Cox proportional hazard models in Stage‐I NSCLC patients
title_fullStr Comparison of deep learning‐based recurrence‐free survival with random survival forest and Cox proportional hazard models in Stage‐I NSCLC patients
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of deep learning‐based recurrence‐free survival with random survival forest and Cox proportional hazard models in Stage‐I NSCLC patients
title_short Comparison of deep learning‐based recurrence‐free survival with random survival forest and Cox proportional hazard models in Stage‐I NSCLC patients
title_sort comparison of deep learning‐based recurrence‐free survival with random survival forest and cox proportional hazard models in stage‐i nsclc patients
topic Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10557877/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37644818
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.6479
work_keys_str_mv AT karirem comparisonofdeeplearningbasedrecurrencefreesurvivalwithrandomsurvivalforestandcoxproportionalhazardmodelsinstageinsclcpatients
AT kocamangokhan comparisonofdeeplearningbasedrecurrencefreesurvivalwithrandomsurvivalforestandcoxproportionalhazardmodelsinstageinsclcpatients
AT ibrahimovfarrukh comparisonofdeeplearningbasedrecurrencefreesurvivalwithrandomsurvivalforestandcoxproportionalhazardmodelsinstageinsclcpatients
AT enonserkan comparisonofdeeplearningbasedrecurrencefreesurvivalwithrandomsurvivalforestandcoxproportionalhazardmodelsinstageinsclcpatients
AT cosgunerdal comparisonofdeeplearningbasedrecurrencefreesurvivalwithrandomsurvivalforestandcoxproportionalhazardmodelsinstageinsclcpatients
AT elhanatillahalil comparisonofdeeplearningbasedrecurrencefreesurvivalwithrandomsurvivalforestandcoxproportionalhazardmodelsinstageinsclcpatients