Dimitris Bertsimas1, Jack Dunn1, Colin Pawlowski1, John Silberholz1, Alexander Weinstein1, Ying Daisy Zhuo1, Eddy Chen1, Aymen A Elfiky1. 1. Dimitris Bertsimas, Jack Dunn, Colin Pawlowski, John Silberholz, Alexander Weinstein, and Ying Daisy Zhuo, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge; Eddy Chen, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; Harvard Medical School; Aymen A. Elfiky, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute; Brigham and Women's Hospital; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: With rapidly evolving treatment options in cancer, the complexity in the clinical decision-making process for oncologists represents a growing challenge magnified by oncologists' disposition of intuition-based assessment of treatment risks and overall mortality. Given the unmet need for accurate prognostication with meaningful clinical rationale, we developed a highly interpretable prediction tool to identify patients with high mortality risk before the start of treatment regimens. METHODS: We obtained electronic health record data between 2004 and 2014 from a large national cancer center and extracted 401 predictors, including demographics, diagnosis, gene mutations, treatment history, comorbidities, resource utilization, vital signs, and laboratory test results. We built an actionable tool using novel developments in modern machine learning to predict 60-, 90- and 180-day mortality from the start of an anticancer regimen. The model was validated in unseen data against benchmark models. RESULTS: We identified 23,983 patients who initiated 46,646 anticancer treatment lines, with a median survival of 514 days. Our proposed prediction models achieved significantly higher estimation quality in unseen data (area under the curve, 0.83 to 0.86) compared with benchmark models. We identified key predictors of mortality, such as change in weight and albumin levels. The results are presented in an interactive and interpretable tool ( www.oncomortality.com ). CONCLUSION: Our fully transparent prediction model was able to distinguish with high precision between highest- and lowest-risk patients. Given the rich data available in electronic health records and advances in machine learning methods, this tool can have significant implications for value-based shared decision making at the point of care and personalized goals-of-care management to catalyze practice reforms.
PURPOSE: With rapidly evolving treatment options in cancer, the complexity in the clinical decision-making process for oncologists represents a growing challenge magnified by oncologists' disposition of intuition-based assessment of treatment risks and overall mortality. Given the unmet need for accurate prognostication with meaningful clinical rationale, we developed a highly interpretable prediction tool to identify patients with high mortality risk before the start of treatment regimens. METHODS: We obtained electronic health record data between 2004 and 2014 from a large national cancer center and extracted 401 predictors, including demographics, diagnosis, gene mutations, treatment history, comorbidities, resource utilization, vital signs, and laboratory test results. We built an actionable tool using novel developments in modern machine learning to predict 60-, 90- and 180-day mortality from the start of an anticancer regimen. The model was validated in unseen data against benchmark models. RESULTS: We identified 23,983 patients who initiated 46,646 anticancer treatment lines, with a median survival of 514 days. Our proposed prediction models achieved significantly higher estimation quality in unseen data (area under the curve, 0.83 to 0.86) compared with benchmark models. We identified key predictors of mortality, such as change in weight and albumin levels. The results are presented in an interactive and interpretable tool ( www.oncomortality.com ). CONCLUSION: Our fully transparent prediction model was able to distinguish with high precision between highest- and lowest-risk patients. Given the rich data available in electronic health records and advances in machine learning methods, this tool can have significant implications for value-based shared decision making at the point of care and personalized goals-of-care management to catalyze practice reforms.
Authors: Kerin Adelson; Donald K K Lee; Salimah Velji; Junchao Ma; Susan K Lipka; Joan Rimar; Peter Longley; Teresita Vega; Javier Perez-Irizarry; Edieal Pinker; Rogerio Lilenbaum Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2017-12-05 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: A de Gramont; A Figer; M Seymour; M Homerin; A Hmissi; J Cassidy; C Boni; H Cortes-Funes; A Cervantes; G Freyer; D Papamichael; N Le Bail; C Louvet; D Hendler; F de Braud; C Wilson; F Morvan; A Bonetti Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ezekiel J Emanuel; Yinong Young-Xu; Norman G Levinsky; Gail Gazelle; Olga Saynina; Arlene S Ash Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-04-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Oren Smaletz; Howard I Scher; Eric J Small; David A Verbel; Alex McMillan; Kevin Regan; W Kevin Kelly; Michael W Kattan Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-10-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ravi B Parikh; Christopher R Manz; Maria N Nelson; Chalanda N Evans; Susan H Regli; Nina O'Connor; Lynn M Schuchter; Lawrence N Shulman; Mitesh S Patel; Joanna Paladino; Judy A Shea Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-01-30 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Rajiv Agarwal; Henry J Domenico; Sreenivasa R Balla; Daniel W Byrne; Jennifer G Whisenant; Marcella C Woods; Barbara J Martin; Mohana B Karlekar; Marc L Bennett Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2022-01-23 Impact factor: 5.576
Authors: Eric H Li; William Ferrell; Tamar Klaiman; Pallavi Kumar; Nina O'Connor; Lynn M Schuchter; Jinbo Chen; Mitesh S Patel; Christopher R Manz; Ravi B Parikh Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2021-11-12
Authors: Ajeet Gajra; Marjorie E Zettler; Kelly A Miller; John G Frownfelter; John Showalter; Amy W Valley; Sanya Sharma; Shreenath Sridharan; Jonathan K Kish; Sibel Blau Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2021-09-10
Authors: Agni Orfanoudaki; Emma Chesley; Christian Cadisch; Barry Stein; Amre Nouh; Mark J Alberts; Dimitris Bertsimas Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-05-21 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Amitava Banerjee; Suliang Chen; Ghazaleh Fatemifar; Mohamad Zeina; R Thomas Lumbers; Johanna Mielke; Simrat Gill; Dipak Kotecha; Daniel F Freitag; Spiros Denaxas; Harry Hemingway Journal: BMC Med Date: 2021-04-06 Impact factor: 11.150
Authors: Sanna Iivanainen; Jussi Ekstrom; Henri Virtanen; Vesa V Kataja; Jussi P Koivunen Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2021-06-30 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Ravi B Parikh; Christopher Manz; Corey Chivers; Susan Harkness Regli; Jennifer Braun; Michael E Draugelis; Lynn M Schuchter; Lawrence N Shulman; Amol S Navathe; Mitesh S Patel; Nina R O'Connor Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2019-10-02