Abstract
Abstract
Purpose
The objective of the current study was to develop and test the performances of different ML algorithms which were trained using patient-reported symptom severity data to predict mortality within 180 days for patients with advanced cancer.
Methods
We randomly selected 630 of 689 patients with advanced cancer at our institution who completed symptom PRO measures as part of routine care between 2009 and 2020. Using clinical, demographic, and PRO data, we trained and tested four ML algorithms: generalized regression with elastic net regularization (GLM), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) trees, support vector machines (SVM), and a single hidden layer neural network (NNET). We assessed the performance of algorithms individually as well as part of an unweighted voting ensemble on the hold-out testing sample. Performance was assessed using area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV).
Results
The starting cohort of 630 patients was randomly partitioned into training (n = 504) and testing (n = 126) samples. Of the four ML models, the XGBoost algorithm demonstrated the best performance for 180-day mortality prediction in testing data (AUROC = 0.69, sensitivity = 0.68, specificity = 0.62, PPV = 0.66, NPV = 0.64). Ensemble of all algorithms performed worst (AUROC = 0.65, sensitivity = 0.65, specificity = 0.62, PPV = 0.65, NPV = 0.62). Of individual PRO symptoms, shortness of breath emerged as the variable of highest impact on the XGBoost 180-mortality prediction (1-AUROC = 0.30).
Conclusion
Our findings support ML models driven by patient-reported symptom severity as accurate predictors of short-term mortality in patients with advanced cancer, highlighting the opportunity to integrate these models prospectively into future studies of goal-concordant care.
Funder
American Cancer Society
Andrew Sabin Family Foundation
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
Reference67 articles.
1. National Quality Forum. (n.d.). NQF: Palliative and End-of-Life Care 2015–2016. Retrieved May 29, 2021, from https://www.qualityforum.org/Publications/2016/12/Palliative_and_End-of-Life_Care_2015-2016.aspx
2. National Care Institute. (n.d.). Choices for Care with Advanced Cancer. Retrieved May 29, 2021, from https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/advanced-cancer/care-choices
3. Pirl, W. F., Lerner, J., Traeger, L., Greer, J. A., El-Jawahri, A., & Temel, J. S. (2016). Oncologists’ dispositional affect and likelihood of end-of-life discussions. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 34(26), 9–9. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2016.34.26_suppl.9
4. Lamont, E. B., & Christakis, N. A. (2001). Prognostic disclosure to patients with cancer near the end of life. Annals of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-134-12-200106190-00009
5. Christakis, N. A., & Iwashyna, T. J. (1998). Attitude and self-reported practice regarding prognostication in a national sample of internists. Archives of Internal Medicine, 158(21), 2389–2395. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.158.21.2389