» Articles » PMID: 39570902

Analysis of Survival-related Factors in Patients with Endometrial Cancer Using a Bayesian Network Model

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2024 Nov 21
PMID 39570902
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: In recent years, remarkable progress has been made in the use of machine learning, especially in analyzing prognosis survival data. Traditional prediction models cannot identify interrelationships between factors, and the predictive accuracy is lower. This study aimed to construct Bayesian network models using the tree augmented naïve algorithm in comparison with the Cox proportional hazards model.

Methods: A Bayesian network model and a Cox proportional hazards model were constructed to analyze the prognostic factors of endometrial cancer. In total, 618 original cases obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database were used to construct the Bayesian network model, which was compared with the traditional Cox proportional hazards model by analyzing prognostic factors. External validation was performed using a dataset from The First Affiliated Hospital of Shandong First Medical University.

Results: The predictive accuracy, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, and concordance index for the Bayesian network model were 74.68%, 0.787, and 0.72, respectively, compared to 68.83%, 0.723, and 0.71, respectively, for the Cox proportional hazards model. Tumor size was the most important factor for predicting survival, followed by lymph node metastasis, distant metastasis, chemotherapy, lymph node resection, tumor stage, depth of invasion, tumor grade, histological type, age, primary tumor site, radiotherapy and surgical sequence, and radiotherapy.

Conclusion: The findings indicate that the Bayesian network model is preferable to the Cox proportional hazards model for predicting survival in patients with endometrial cancer.

Citing Articles

Prognostic risk modeling of endometrial cancer using programmed cell death-related genes: a comprehensive machine learning approach.

Chen T, Yang Y, Huang Z, Pan F, Xiao Z, Gong K Discov Oncol. 2025; 16(1):280.

PMID: 40056247 PMC: 11890841. DOI: 10.1007/s12672-025-02039-8.

References
1.
Connor C . Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Anesthesiology. Anesthesiology. 2019; 131(6):1346-1359. PMC: 6778496. DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000002694. View

2.
Manheim D, Detwiler R . Accurate and reliable estimation of kinetic parameters for environmental engineering applications: A global, multi objective, Bayesian optimization approach. MethodsX. 2019; 6:1398-1414. PMC: 6582191. DOI: 10.1016/j.mex.2019.05.035. View

3.
Zhang X, El-Serag H, Thrift A . Predictors of five-year survival among patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in the United States: an analysis of SEER-Medicare. Cancer Causes Control. 2021; 32(4):317-325. DOI: 10.1007/s10552-020-01386-x. View

4.
Boothe D, Wolfson A, Christensen M, Francis S, Werner T, Gaffney D . Lymphovascular Invasion in Endometrial Cancer: Prognostic Value and Implications on Adjuvant Radiation Therapy Use. Am J Clin Oncol. 2019; 42(7):549-554. DOI: 10.1097/COC.0000000000000559. View

5.
Dong J, Dai Q, Zhang F . The effect of marital status on endometrial cancer-related diagnosis and prognosis: a Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results database analysis. Future Oncol. 2019; 15(34):3963-3976. DOI: 10.2217/fon-2019-0241. View