| Literature DB >> 35011828 |
Alexandros Laios1, Raissa Vanessa De Oliveira Silva2, Daniel Lucas Dantas De Freitas2, Yong Sheng Tan1, Gwendolyn Saalmink1, Albina Zubayraeva1, Racheal Johnson1, Angelika Kaufmann1, Mohammed Otify1, Richard Hutson1, Amudha Thangavelu1, Tim Broadhead1, David Nugent1, Georgios Theophilou1, Kassio Michell Gomes de Lima2, Diederick De Jong1.
Abstract
Achieving complete surgical cytoreduction in advanced stage high grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) patients warrants an availability of Critical Care Unit (CCU) beds. Machine Learning (ML) could be helpful in monitoring CCU admissions to improve standards of care. We aimed to improve the accuracy of predicting CCU admission in HGSOC patients by ML algorithms and developed an ML-based predictive score. A cohort of 291 advanced stage HGSOC patients with fully curated data was selected. Several linear and non-linear distances, and quadratic discriminant ML methods, were employed to derive prediction information for CCU admission. When all the variables were included in the model, the prediction accuracies were higher for linear discriminant (0.90) and quadratic discriminant (0.93) methods compared with conventional logistic regression (0.84). Feature selection identified pre-treatment albumin, surgical complexity score, estimated blood loss, operative time, and bowel resection with stoma as the most significant prediction features. The real-time prediction accuracy of the Graphical User Interface CCU calculator reached 95%. Limited, potentially modifiable, mostly intra-operative factors contributing to CCU admission were identified and suggest areas for targeted interventions. The accurate quantification of CCU admission patterns is critical information when counseling patients about peri-operative risks related to their cytoreductive surgery.Entities:
Keywords: Critical Care Unit; Graphical User Interface; Machine Learning; ovarian cancer; surgical cytoreduction
Year: 2021 PMID: 35011828 PMCID: PMC8745521 DOI: 10.3390/jcm11010087
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Med ISSN: 2077-0383 Impact factor: 4.241
Figure 1Machine Learning (ML) Model derivation and validation flow from a fully curated source of advanced stage high grade serous ovarian cancer patient and surgical data. The framework comprised data pre-processing with feature selection and model training. The model was evaluated using performance metrics prior to the development of an ML-based nomogram and a web application to help with risk assessment.
Pre-operative, intra-operative and post-operative parameters of the study cohort.
| Variables ( | Levels | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, year, SD (range) | N/A | 64.2 ± 10.5 (41–90) | N/A |
| BMI, mean, SD (range) | N/A | 27 ± 5.8 (18.5–58) | N/A |
| Pre-Treatment CA125, mean, SD (min-max) | N/A | 1777 ± 3125 (12–28,000) U | N/A |
| Pre-Treatment Albumin, mean, SD (min-max) | N/A | 38.3 ± 3.8 (17–49) U | N/A |
| Surgical Complexity Score (SCS) | Low (1–3) | 166 | 57% |
| Moderate (4–7) | 108 | 37.1% | |
| High (8–12) | 17 | 5.9% | |
| Disease score (DS) | Pelvis | 17 | 5.8% |
| Lower abdomen | 220 | 75.6% | |
| Upper abdomen | 54 | 18.6% | |
| Residual Disease (RD) | R0 | 190 | 65.3% |
| R1 (<1 cm) | 78 | 26.8% | |
| R2 (≥1 cm) | 23 | 7.9% | |
| CCU admission | Yes | 56 | 19.2% |
| No | 235 | 80.8% | |
| Bowel resection with stoma | Yes | 21 | 7.2% |
| No | 270 | 92.8% | |
| ECOG Performance Status (PS) | 0 | 127 | 43.6% |
| 1 | 119 | 40.9% | |
| 2 | 38 | 13.1% | |
| 3 | 7 | 2.4% | |
| Charlson Co-morbidity Index (CCI) | Low (0–2) | 146 | 50.2% |
| High (≥3) | 145 | 49.8% | |
| Timing of cytoreduction | PDS | 69 | 23.7% |
| Operation time, mean SD (min-max) | N/A | 182 ± 75 | N/A |
| Length of stay, mean, SD (min-max) | N/A | 9 ± 13 (3–172) days | N/A |
| Clavien-Dindo complications (3a–5) | Yes | 16 | 5.5% |
| Admission within 30 days | Yes | Data | Data |
ECOG; Eastern Co-operative Oncology Group; PDS; primary debulking surgery, IDS; interval debulking surgery.
Figure 2(A) Results of multivariate logistic regression leading to feature selection in the development of the predictive Machine Learning model. (B) Correlation heatmap representing the values of the determination co-efficient (R2) between the original variables entered for model development. Not surprisingly, the highest correlation was observed between surgical complexity and operative time. (C) Correlation heatmap representing the P values between the original system variables. In areas where there was no representation (square in any key), there was no significant correlation amongst variables (p > 0.05). BMI; body mass index, PS; performance status, CCI; Charlson co-morbidity index, SCS; surgical complexity score, DS;disease score, EBL; estimated blood loss, RD; residual disease, Alb; albumin.
Figure 3Visual summary of the model performance and evaluation based on the comparison of Receiver Operator Curve (ROC) and Area Under (ROC) (AUROC) for Critical Care Unit admission (A) training set; all variables included (B) test set; all variables included (C) training set; selected variables (D) test set; selected variables included.
Performance metrics of the Machine Learning models and comparisons with conventional Logistic Regression for the prediction of Critical Care Unit admission following cytoreductive surgery for advanced high grade serous ovarian cancer.
| Predictors | Model | Set | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | F-Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All variables | KNN | Train | 0.94 | 0.78 | 0.97 | 0.86 |
| CV LOO | 0.94 | 0.78 | 0.97 | 0.86 | ||
| Test | 0.80 | 0.45 | 0.92 | 0.60 | ||
| ANN | Train | 0.97 | 0.96 | 0.97 | 0.96 | |
| CV LOO | 0.88 | 0.85 | 0.88 | 0.86 | ||
| Test | 0.82 | 0.86 | 0.81 | 0.83 | ||
| LDA | Train | 0.97 | 0.96 | 0.97 | 0.96 | |
| Test | 0.90 | 0.93 | 0.89 | 0.91 | ||
| QDA | Train | 0.97 | 1.00 | 0.97 | 0.98 | |
| Test | 0.93 | 0.93 | 0.93 | 0.93 | ||
| LR | Train | 0.96 | 0.85 | 0.98 | 0.91 | |
| Test | 0.84 | 0.59 | 0.93 | 0.72 | ||
| Selected * | KNN | Train | 0.94 | 0.89 | 0.95 | 0.92 |
| CV LOO | 0.94 | 0.89 | 0.95 | 0.92 | ||
| Test | 0.86 | 0.69 | 0.92 | 0.79 | ||
| ANN | Train | 0.90 | 0.89 | 0.90 | 0.99 | |
| CV LOO | 0.89 | 0.89 | 0.89 | 0.89 | ||
| Test | 0.76 | 0.79 | 0.74 | 0.76 | ||
| LDA | Train | 0.97 | 0.96 | 0.97 | 0.96 | |
| Test | 0.89 | 0.93 | 0.88 | 0.90 | ||
| QDA | Train | 0.89 | 0.96 | 0.87 | 0.91 | |
| Test | 0.75 | 0.97 | 0.68 | 0.80 | ||
| LR | Train | 0.95 | 0.78 | 0.98 | 0.87 | |
| Test | 0.82 | 0.55 | 0.92 | 0.69 |
* Surgical complexity score; pre-surgery albumin; blood loss; operative time; bowel resection with stoma. KNN; k-Nearest Neighbors, ANN; Artificial Neural Network, CV-LOO; Leave-one-out-cross-validation; LDA; Linear Discriminant Analysis, QDA; Quadratic Discriminant Analysis, LR; Logistic Regression.
Figure 4(A) Screenshot from the Critical Care Unit (CCU) calculator Graphical User Interface for the prediction of CCU admission. (B) Performance of the Artificial Neural Network (ANN(BPN)) algorithm used for the development of the Graphical User Interface based on the regression principles. (C) Examples of clinical application. Note that in the same patient, intra-operative decision making for rectosigmoid resection and stoma formation would massively increase the risk for CCU admission.