PURPOSE: There is a need for an improved understanding of clinical and biologic risk factors in pediatric cancer to improve patient outcomes. Machine learning (ML) represents the application of computational inference from advanced statistical methods that can be applied to increasing amount of data available for study in pediatric oncology. The goal of this systematic review was to systematically characterize the state of ML in pediatric oncology and highlight advances and opportunities in the field. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the Embase, Scopus, and MEDLINE databases for applications of ML in pediatric oncology. Query results from all three databases were aggregated and duplicate studies were removed. RESULTS: A total of 42 unique articles that examined the applications of ML in pediatric oncology met inclusion criteria for review. We identified 20 studies of CNS tumors, 13 of solid tumors, and nine of leukemia. ML tasks included classification, prediction of treatment response, and dose optimization with a variety of methods being used including neural network, k-nearest neighbor, random forest, naive Bayes, and support vector machines. Strengths of the identified studies included matching or outperforming physician comparators via automated analysis and predicting therapeutic response. Common limitations included significant heterogeneity in reporting standards, clinical applicability, small sample sizes, and missing external validation cohorts. CONCLUSION: We identified areas where ML can enhance clinical care in ways that may not otherwise be achievable. Although ML promises enormous potential in improving diagnostics, decision making, and monitoring for children with cancer, the field remains in early stages and future work will be aided by standards and guidelines to ensure rigorous methodologic design and maximizing clinical utility.
PURPOSE: There is a need for an improved understanding of clinical and biologic risk factors in pediatric cancer to improve patient outcomes. Machine learning (ML) represents the application of computational inference from advanced statistical methods that can be applied to increasing amount of data available for study in pediatric oncology. The goal of this systematic review was to systematically characterize the state of ML in pediatric oncology and highlight advances and opportunities in the field. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the Embase, Scopus, and MEDLINE databases for applications of ML in pediatric oncology. Query results from all three databases were aggregated and duplicate studies were removed. RESULTS: A total of 42 unique articles that examined the applications of ML in pediatric oncology met inclusion criteria for review. We identified 20 studies of CNS tumors, 13 of solid tumors, and nine of leukemia. ML tasks included classification, prediction of treatment response, and dose optimization with a variety of methods being used including neural network, k-nearest neighbor, random forest, naive Bayes, and support vector machines. Strengths of the identified studies included matching or outperforming physician comparators via automated analysis and predicting therapeutic response. Common limitations included significant heterogeneity in reporting standards, clinical applicability, small sample sizes, and missing external validation cohorts. CONCLUSION: We identified areas where ML can enhance clinical care in ways that may not otherwise be achievable. Although ML promises enormous potential in improving diagnostics, decision making, and monitoring for children with cancer, the field remains in early stages and future work will be aided by standards and guidelines to ensure rigorous methodologic design and maximizing clinical utility.
Authors: Samuel L Volchenboum; Suzanne M Cox; Allison Heath; Adam Resnick; Susan L Cohn; Robert Grossman Journal: Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book Date: 2017
Authors: Ahmed E Fetit; Jan Novak; Daniel Rodriguez; Dorothee P Auer; Christopher A Clark; Richard G Grundy; Andrew C Peet; Theodoros N Arvanitis Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2017-10-26 Impact factor: 4.044