» Articles » PMID: 37777809

Development and Testing of a Random Forest-based Machine Learning Model for Predicting Events Among Breast Cancer Patients with a Poor Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy

Overview
Journal Eur J Med Res
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2023 Sep 30
PMID 37777809
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Breast cancer (BC) is the most common malignant tumor around the world. Timely detection of the tumor progression after treatment could improve the survival outcome of patients. This study aimed to develop machine learning models to predict events (defined as either (1) the first tumor relapse locally, regionally, or distantly; (2) a diagnosis of secondary malignant tumor; or (3) death because of any reason.) in BC patients post-treatment.

Methods: The patients with the response of stable disease (SD) and progressive disease (PD) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) were selected. The clinicopathological features and the survival data were recorded in 1 year and 5 years, respectively. Patients were randomly divided into the training set and test set in the ratio of 8:2. A random forest (RF) and a logistic regression were established in both of 1-year cohort and the 5-year cohort. The performance was compared between the two models. The models were validated using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database.

Results: A total of 315 patients were included. In the 1-year cohort, 197 patients were divided into a training set while 87 were into a test set. The specificity, sensitivity, and AUC were 0.800, 0.833, and 0.810 in the RF model. And 0.520, 0.833, and 0.653 of the logistic regression. In the 5-year cohort, 132 patients were divided into the training set while 33 were into the test set. The specificity, sensitivity, and AUC were 0.882, 0.750, and 0.829 in the RF model. And 0.882, 0.688, and 0.752 of the logistic regression. In the external validation set, of the RF model, the specificity, sensitivity, and AUC were 0.765, 0.812, and 0.779. Of the logistics regression model, the specificity, sensitivity, and AUC were 0.833, 0.376, and 0.619.

Conclusion: The RF model has a good performance in predicting events among BC patients with SD and PD post-NAC. It may be beneficial to BC patients, assisting in detecting tumor recurrence.

Citing Articles

Development and validation of a machine learning model for predicting intrapartum fever using pre-labor analgesia clinical indicators: a multicenter retrospective study.

Liu B, Ling L, Jia F, Wei D, Li H, Li Y BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2025; 25(1):243.

PMID: 40050775 PMC: 11887141. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-025-07203-0.


Deep Learning Models for Predicting the Recurrence of Idiopathic Granulomatous Mastitis.

Li L, Yang W, Jia H J Inflamm Res. 2025; 18:2943-2953.

PMID: 40026307 PMC: 11872085. DOI: 10.2147/JIR.S499512.


Use of machine learning algorithms to construct models of symptom burden cluster risk in breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.

Huang Q, Yang Y, Yuan C, Zhang W, Zong X, Wu F Support Care Cancer. 2025; 33(3):190.

PMID: 39945884 PMC: 11825622. DOI: 10.1007/s00520-025-09236-9.


Following intravenous thrombolysis, the outcome of diabetes mellitus associated with acute ischemic stroke was predicted via machine learning.

Liu X, Wang M, Wen R, Zhu H, Xiao Y, He Q Front Pharmacol. 2025; 16:1506771.

PMID: 39931692 PMC: 11808246. DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2025.1506771.


[Prediction of hemorrhage rate after tonsil surgery in children based on random forest model].

Xu H, Qiu S, Wang J, Han F, Xia Z, Ni L Lin Chuang Er Bi Yan Hou Tou Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2024; 38(10):883-890.

PMID: 39390924 PMC: 11839569. DOI: 10.13201/j.issn.2096-7993.2024.10.001.


References
1.
Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel R, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A . Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021; 71(3):209-249. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21660. View

2.
Waks A, Winer E . Breast Cancer Treatment: A Review. JAMA. 2019; 321(3):288-300. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2018.19323. View

3.
Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M, Mehta K, Costantino J, Wolmark N . Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet. 2014; 384(9938):164-72. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62422-8. View

4.
Spring L, Greenup R, Niemierko A, Schapira L, Haddad S, Jimenez R . Pathologic Complete Response After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Long-Term Outcomes Among Young Women With Breast Cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2017; 15(10):1216-1223. DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2017.0158. View

5.
Hou Y, Peng Y, Li Z . Update on prognostic and predictive biomarkers of breast cancer. Semin Diagn Pathol. 2022; 39(5):322-332. DOI: 10.1053/j.semdp.2022.06.015. View