Cargando…

Machine learning for lymph node metastasis prediction of in patients with gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of machine learning (ML) in predicting lymph node metastasis (LNM) in patients with gastric cancer (GC) and to identify predictors applicable to the models. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, Yilin, Xie, Fengjiao, Xiong, Qin, Lei, Honglin, Feng, Peimin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9433672/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36059703
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.946038
_version_ 1784780674038759424
author Li, Yilin
Xie, Fengjiao
Xiong, Qin
Lei, Honglin
Feng, Peimin
author_facet Li, Yilin
Xie, Fengjiao
Xiong, Qin
Lei, Honglin
Feng, Peimin
author_sort Li, Yilin
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of machine learning (ML) in predicting lymph node metastasis (LNM) in patients with gastric cancer (GC) and to identify predictors applicable to the models. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to March 16, 2022. The pooled c-index and accuracy were used to assess the diagnostic accuracy. Subgroup analysis was performed based on ML types. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effect models. Risk of bias assessment was conducted using PROBAST tool. RESULTS: A total of 41 studies (56182 patients) were included, and 33 of the studies divided the participants into a training set and a test set, while the rest of the studies only had a training set. The c-index of ML for LNM prediction in training set and test set was 0.837 [95%CI (0.814, 0.859)] and 0.811 [95%CI (0.785-0.838)], respectively. The pooled accuracy was 0.781 [(95%CI (0.756-0.805)] in training set and 0.753 [95%CI (0.721-0.783)] in test set. Subgroup analysis for different ML algorithms and staging of GC showed no significant difference. In contrast, in the subgroup analysis for predictors, in the training set, the model that included radiomics had better accuracy than the model with only clinical predictors (F = 3.546, p = 0.037). Additionally, cancer size, depth of cancer invasion and histological differentiation were the three most commonly used features in models built for prediction. CONCLUSION: ML has shown to be of excellent diagnostic performance in predicting the LNM of GC. One of the models covering radiomics and its ML algorithms showed good accuracy for the risk of LNM in GC. However, the results revealed some methodological limitations in the development process. Future studies should focus on refining and improving existing models to improve the accuracy of LNM prediction. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022320752
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9433672
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94336722022-09-02 Machine learning for lymph node metastasis prediction of in patients with gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis Li, Yilin Xie, Fengjiao Xiong, Qin Lei, Honglin Feng, Peimin Front Oncol Oncology OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of machine learning (ML) in predicting lymph node metastasis (LNM) in patients with gastric cancer (GC) and to identify predictors applicable to the models. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to March 16, 2022. The pooled c-index and accuracy were used to assess the diagnostic accuracy. Subgroup analysis was performed based on ML types. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effect models. Risk of bias assessment was conducted using PROBAST tool. RESULTS: A total of 41 studies (56182 patients) were included, and 33 of the studies divided the participants into a training set and a test set, while the rest of the studies only had a training set. The c-index of ML for LNM prediction in training set and test set was 0.837 [95%CI (0.814, 0.859)] and 0.811 [95%CI (0.785-0.838)], respectively. The pooled accuracy was 0.781 [(95%CI (0.756-0.805)] in training set and 0.753 [95%CI (0.721-0.783)] in test set. Subgroup analysis for different ML algorithms and staging of GC showed no significant difference. In contrast, in the subgroup analysis for predictors, in the training set, the model that included radiomics had better accuracy than the model with only clinical predictors (F = 3.546, p = 0.037). Additionally, cancer size, depth of cancer invasion and histological differentiation were the three most commonly used features in models built for prediction. CONCLUSION: ML has shown to be of excellent diagnostic performance in predicting the LNM of GC. One of the models covering radiomics and its ML algorithms showed good accuracy for the risk of LNM in GC. However, the results revealed some methodological limitations in the development process. Future studies should focus on refining and improving existing models to improve the accuracy of LNM prediction. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022320752 Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-08-18 /pmc/articles/PMC9433672/ /pubmed/36059703 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.946038 Text en Copyright © 2022 Li, Xie, Xiong, Lei and Feng https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Oncology
Li, Yilin
Xie, Fengjiao
Xiong, Qin
Lei, Honglin
Feng, Peimin
Machine learning for lymph node metastasis prediction of in patients with gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title Machine learning for lymph node metastasis prediction of in patients with gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Machine learning for lymph node metastasis prediction of in patients with gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Machine learning for lymph node metastasis prediction of in patients with gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Machine learning for lymph node metastasis prediction of in patients with gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Machine learning for lymph node metastasis prediction of in patients with gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort machine learning for lymph node metastasis prediction of in patients with gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Oncology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9433672/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36059703
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.946038
work_keys_str_mv AT liyilin machinelearningforlymphnodemetastasispredictionofinpatientswithgastriccancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT xiefengjiao machinelearningforlymphnodemetastasispredictionofinpatientswithgastriccancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT xiongqin machinelearningforlymphnodemetastasispredictionofinpatientswithgastriccancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT leihonglin machinelearningforlymphnodemetastasispredictionofinpatientswithgastriccancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT fengpeimin machinelearningforlymphnodemetastasispredictionofinpatientswithgastriccancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis