Invasion of Adjacent Lumbar Vertebral Body from Renal Pelvis Carcinoma: Associated With Bone Metastasis But Easily Overlooked on Initial CT Scan

Development and validation of a machine learning model to predict the risk of lymph node metastasis in renal carcinoma

SIMPLE SUMMARY

Studies have shown that about 30% of kidney cancer patients will have metastasis, and lymph node metastasis (LNM) may be related to a poor prognosis. Our retrospective study aims to provide a reliable machine learning-based model to predict the occurrence of LNM in kidney cancer. We screened the pathological grade, liver metastasis, M staging, primary site, T staging, and tumor size from the training group (n=39016) formed by the SEER database and the validation group (n=771) formed by the medical center. Independent predictors of LNM in cancer patients. Using six different algorithms to build a prediction model, it is found that the prediction performance of the XGB model in the training group and the validation group is significantly better than any other machine learning model. The results show that prediction tools based on machine learning can accurately predict the probability of LNM in patients with kidney cancer and have satisfactory clinical application prospects.

BACKGROUND

Lymph node metastasis (LNM) is associated with the prognosis of patients with kidney cancer. This study aimed to provide reliable machine learning-based (ML-based) models to predict the probability of LNM in kidney cancer.

METHODS

Data on patients diagnosed with kidney cancer were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and Outcomes (SEER) database from 2010 to 2017, and variables were filtered by least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO), univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. Statistically significant risk factors were used to build predictive models. We used 10-fold cross-validation in the validation of the model. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to assess the performance of the model. Correlation heat maps were used to investigate the correlation of features using permutation analysis to assess the importance of predictors. Probability density functions (PDFs) and clinical utility curves (CUCs) were used to determine clinical utility thresholds.

RESULTS

The training cohort of this study included 39,016 patients, and the validation cohort included 771 patients. In the two cohorts, 2544 (6.5%) and 66 (8.1%) patients had LNM, respectively. Pathological grade, liver metastasis, M stage, primary site, T stage, and tumor size were independent predictive factors of LNM. In both model validation, the XGB model significantly outperformed any of the machine learning models with an AUC value of 0.916.A web calculator (https://share.streamlit.io/liuwencai4/renal_lnm/main/renal_lnm.py) were built based on the XGB model. Based on the PDF and CUC, we suggested 54.6% as a threshold probability for guiding the diagnosis of LNM, which could distinguish about 89% of LNM patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The predictive tool based on machine learning can precisely indicate the probability of LNM in kidney cancer patients and has a satisfying application prospect in clinical practice.

Development and Validation of a Predictive Model to Evaluate the Risk of Bone Metastasis in Kidney Cancer

Background

Bone is a common target of metastasis in kidney cancer, and accurately predicting the risk of bone metastases (BMs) facilitates risk stratification and precision medicine in kidney cancer.

Methods

Patients diagnosed with kidney cancer were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database to comprise the training group from 2010 to 2017, and the validation group was drawn from our academic medical center. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses explored the statistical relationships between the included variables and BM. Statistically significant risk factors were applied to develop a nomogram. Calibration plots, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, probability density functions (PDF), and clinical utility curves (CUC) were used to verify the predictive performance. Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves demonstrated survival differences between two subgroups of kidney cancer with and without BMs. A convenient web calculator was provided for users via “shiny” package.

Results

A total of 43,503 patients were recruited in this study, of which 42,650 were training group cases and 853 validation group cases. The variables included in the nomogram were sex, pathological grade, T-stage, N-stage, sequence number, brain metastases, liver metastasis, pulmonary metastasis, histological type, primary site, and laterality. The calibration plots confirmed good agreement between the prediction model and the actual results. The area under the curve (AUC) values in the training and validation groups were 0.952 (95% CI, 0.950–0.954) and 0.836 (95% CI, 0.809–0.860), respectively. Based on CUC, we recommend a threshold probability of 5% to guide the diagnosis of BMs.

Conclusions

The comprehensive predictive tool consisting of nomogram and web calculator contributes to risk stratification which helped clinicians identify high-risk cases and provide personalized treatment options.