Clinicodemographic Prediction of Overall Survival in Patients with Head and Neck Merkel Cell Carcinoma: A Machine Learning Approach
Yasin, J. A.; Obeid, A.-a.; Odat, R. M.; Qtaishat, F. A.; Tamimi, M.-A. A.; Younis, O. M.; Qasem, H. M.; Issi, N.; Ateiwi, Y. A.; Alshwayyat, S.
Show abstract
BackgroundMerkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare cutaneous neuroendocrine malignancy with a higher case-fatality rate than melanoma. The prognosis of MCC is complex and depends on many factors. In this study, we aimed to develop predictive survival models using machine learning (ML) algorithms and statistical techniques for patients with head and neck MCC. MethodologyUsing a cohort of 1,372 patients diagnosed with MCC of the head and neck region in the United States between 2000 to 2019 sourced from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, we developed and evaluated a cox-proportional hazards (CPH) regression model, nine classification and regression ML models, and two ML-based survival models. Models were built with a total of 20 features, including demographic, cancer-related and treatment/surgery-related variables. Pre-processing, hyperparameter tuning, classification, regression, survival analyses, and model evaluations were performed using scikit-learn, scikit-survival, and lifelines packages on Python 3.80. ResultsThe mean age of patients was (66.0). Most cases were diagnosed in stage I (n=723, 52.7%). Multivariate CPH model yielded a Concordance-Index (C-Index) = 0.700 on the test set, outperforming both random forest survival (C-Index = 0.591) and survival tree (C-Index = 0.582) algorithms. Of the nine classification models, gradient boosting classifier predicted the most accurate 2-year (AUC = 0.75; accuracy= 0.71) and 5-year (AUC = 0.75; accuracy = 0.68) survival. Additionally, the ridge- and lasso-regularized linear models performed the most accurate regression (RMSE = 1182.84, R2 = 0.2259; RMSE = 1184.70, R2 = 0.2234, respectively), and the gradient boosting regressor had acceptable predictions (RMSE = 1189.64, R2 = 0.2170) on test sets. According to the Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) value analysis, the most critical feature of these regression models was age, followed by sex and AJCC stage. ConclusionsThis study found that machine learning and statistical models provide reliable survival predictions for head and neck Merkel cell carcinoma, with models like gradient boosting classifiers having acceptable outputs, especially for 2-year survival.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Machine learning based prediction of recurrence after curative resection for rectal cancer 96%
- Prognostic Biomarkers for Predicting Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma Patients at High Risk Using Nine Genes of Apoptotic Pathway 95%
- Classification performance bias between training and test sets in a limited mammography dataset 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Patient stratification of clear cell renal cell carcinoma using the global transcription factor activity landscape derived from RNA-seq data 93%
- Predicting Axillary Lymph Node Metastasis in Early Breast Cancer Using Deep Learning on Primary Tumor Biopsy Slides 93%
- Systems biomedicine of primary and metastatic colorectal cancer reveals potential therapeutic targets 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Hormone Receptor-status Prediction in Breast Cancer Using Gene Expression Profiles and Their Macroscopic Landscape 93%
- COL7A1 expression improves prognosis prediction for patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma atop of stage 93%
- Development of a Single Molecule Counting Assay to Differentiate Chromophobe Renal Cancer and Oncocytoma in Clinics 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Classification models for Invasive Ductal Carcinoma Progression, based on gene expression data-trained supervised machine learning 93%
- Comparison of Radiomic Feature Aggregation Methods for Patients with Multiple Tumors 93%
- Novel ratio-metric features enable the identification of new driver genes across cancer types 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.