Automated data extraction and ensemble methods for predictive modeling of breast cancer outcomes after radiation therapy

Public health implications of computer-aided diagnosis and treatment technologies in breast cancer care

Breast cancer remains a significant public health issue, being a leading cause of cancer-related mortality among women globally. Timely diagnosis and efficient treatment are crucial for enhancing patient outcomes, reducing healthcare burdens and advancing community health. This systematic review, following the PRISMA guidelines, aims to comprehensively synthesize the recent advancements in computer-aided diagnosis and treatment for breast cancer. The study covers the latest developments in image analysis and processing, machine learning and deep learning algorithms, multimodal fusion techniques and radiation therapy planning and simulation. The results of the review suggest that machine learning, augmented and virtual reality and data mining are the three major research hotspots in breast cancer management. Moreover, this paper discusses the challenges and opportunities for future research in this field. The conclusion highlights the importance of computer-aided techniques in the management of breast cancer and summarizes the key findings of the review.

Overinterpretation of findings in machine learning prediction model studies in oncology: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

In biomedical research, spin is the overinterpretation of findings, and it is a growing concern. To date, the presence of spin has not been evaluated in prognostic model research in oncology, including studies developing and validating models for individualized risk prediction.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a systematic review, searching MEDLINE and EMBASE for oncology-related studies that developed and validated a prognostic model using machine learning published between 1st January, 2019, and 5th September, 2019. We used existing spin frameworks and described areas of highly suggestive spin practices.

RESULTS

We included 62 publications (including 152 developed models; 37 validated models). Reporting was inconsistent between methods and the results in 27% of studies due to additional analysis and selective reporting. Thirty-two studies (out of 36 applicable studies) reported comparisons between developed models in their discussion and predominantly used discrimination measures to support their claims (78%). Thirty-five studies (56%) used an overly strong or leading word in their title, abstract, results, discussion, or conclusion.

CONCLUSION

The potential for spin needs to be considered when reading, interpreting, and using studies that developed and validated prognostic models in oncology. Researchers should carefully report their prognostic model research using words that reflect their actual results and strength of evidence.

Methodological conduct of prognostic prediction models developed using machine learning in oncology: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Describe and evaluate the methodological conduct of prognostic prediction models developed using machine learning methods in oncology.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review in MEDLINE and Embase between 01/01/2019 and 05/09/2019, for studies developing a prognostic prediction model using machine learning methods in oncology. We used the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement, Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST) and CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS) to assess the methodological conduct of included publications. Results were summarised by modelling type: regression-, non-regression-based and ensemble machine learning models.

RESULTS

Sixty-two publications met inclusion criteria developing 152 models across all publications. Forty-two models were regression-based, 71 were non-regression-based and 39 were ensemble models. A median of 647 individuals (IQR: 203 to 4059) and 195 events (IQR: 38 to 1269) were used for model development, and 553 individuals (IQR: 69 to 3069) and 50 events (IQR: 17.5 to 326.5) for model validation. A higher number of events per predictor was used for developing regression-based models (median: 8, IQR: 7.1 to 23.5), compared to alternative machine learning (median: 3.4, IQR: 1.1 to 19.1) and ensemble models (median: 1.7, IQR: 1.1 to 6). Sample size was rarely justified (n = 5/62; 8%). Some or all continuous predictors were categorised before modelling in 24 studies (39%). 46% (n = 24/62) of models reporting predictor selection before modelling used univariable analyses, and common method across all modelling types. Ten out of 24 models for time-to-event outcomes accounted for censoring (42%). A split sample approach was the most popular method for internal validation (n = 25/62, 40%). Calibration was reported in 11 studies. Less than half of models were reported or made available.

CONCLUSIONS

The methodological conduct of machine learning based clinical prediction models is poor. Guidance is urgently needed, with increased awareness and education of minimum prediction modelling standards. Particular focus is needed on sample size estimation, development and validation analysis methods, and ensuring the model is available for independent validation, to improve quality of machine learning based clinical prediction models.

Research and Application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) based on Electronic Health Records from Patients with Cancer: a Systematic Review (Preprint)

Background

With the accumulation of electronic health records and the development of artificial intelligence, patients with cancer urgently need new evidence of more personalized clinical and demographic characteristics and more sophisticated treatment and prevention strategies. However, no research has systematically analyzed the application and significance of artificial intelligence based on electronic health records in cancer care.

Objective

The aim of this study was to conduct a review to introduce the current state and limitations of artificial intelligence based on electronic health records of patients with cancer and to summarize the performance of artificial intelligence in mining electronic health records and its impact on cancer care.

Methods

Three databases were systematically searched to retrieve potentially relevant papers published from January 2009 to October 2020. Four principal reviewers assessed the quality of the papers and reviewed them for eligibility based on the inclusion criteria in the extracted data. The summary measures used in this analysis were the number and frequency of occurrence of the themes.

Results

Of the 1034 papers considered, 148 papers met the inclusion criteria. Cancer care, especially cancers of female organs and digestive organs, could benefit from artificial intelligence based on electronic health records through cancer emergencies and prognostic estimates, cancer diagnosis and prediction, tumor stage detection, cancer case detection, and treatment pattern recognition. The models can always achieve an area under the curve of 0.7. Ensemble methods and deep learning are on the rise. In addition, electronic medical records in the existing studies are mainly in English and from private institutional databases.

Conclusions

Artificial intelligence based on electronic health records performed well and could be useful for cancer care. Improving the performance of artificial intelligence can help patients receive more scientific-based and accurate treatments. There is a need for the development of new methods and electronic health record data sharing and for increased passion and support from cancer specialists.

Preliminary results of computer-aided diagnosis for magnetic resonance imaging of solid breast lesions

PURPOSE

The present study aimed to determine suitable optimal classifiers and investigate the general applicability of computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) to compare magnetic resonance (MR)-CAD with MR imaging (MRI) in distinguishing benign from malignant solid breast masses.

METHODS

We analyzed a total of 251 patients (mean age: 44.8 ± 12.3 years; range: 21-81 years) with 274 breast masses (154 benign masses, 120 malignant masses) using a Gaussian mixture model and a random forest machine model for segmentation and classification.

RESULTS

The diagnostic performance of MRI alone and MRI plus CAD were compared with respect to sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC), using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. The discriminating power to detect malignancy using MR-CAD with an AUC of 0.955 (sensitivity was 95.8% and the specificity was 92.9%) was significantly higher than that of MRI alone with an AUC of 0.785 (sensitivity was 71.7% and the specificity was 85.7%).

CONCLUSION

CAD is feasible to differentiate breast lesions, and it can complement MRI, thereby making it easier to diagnose breast lesions and obviating the need for unnecessary biopsies.