Exploiting Machine Learning in Local Treatment Strategies in Cancer Patients with Bone Metastases

Wang Zhiyu,Yang Mengdi,Sun Jin,Yao Guangyu,Zhou Yiyi,Hui Zhao
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2018.36.15_suppl.e18505
IF: 45.3
2018-01-01
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Abstract:e18505 Background: With the rising life expectancy in cancer patients with bone metastases (BM), the need for local treatment (LT) is expanding. But indications for LT are still controversial. Machine learning (ML) could learn from the observed data to create reasonable generalizations. The purpose of this article was to evaluate the use of ML model in LT strategies of cancer patients with BM. Methods: In clinical practice, the interdisciplinary team formulated made LT decision,including open surgery or percutaneous osteoplasty (POP) . Logistic regression, decision tree (DT) and support vector machine models which structured and published at 2014, were also used to calculate LT probability. Pre- and post-treatment Visual analog scale (VAS) and EORTC QLQ-BM22 were analyzed. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to calculate survival. Results: Between Jan 2014 and Sep 2016, 384 patients were eligible for this prospective study, and 92 patients underwent LT (29 patients surgery, 63 patients POP). Among 3 models, DT model was the best compared with interdisciplinary team decision with sensitivity 82.6%, specificity 86.9% and accuracy 85.9%. VAS and pain characteristics of QLQ-BM22 dropped significantly at 1 and 3 months after LT, while functional interference and psychosocial aspects of QLQ-BM22 increased significantly at 3 months (p< 0.05). VAS, pain characteristics of 76 patients with right prediction in DT model (4.0±1.4, 29.4±17.9 respectively) was significantly lower than 16 patients with wrong prediction (4.9±1.6, 35.3±21.5) from 1 month after LT (p< 0.05), while functional interference in patients with right prediction (67.3±19.6) was significantly higher than patients with wrong prediction (61.7±21.1) at 3 months (p< 0.05). The median overall survival time (OS) in 92 patients after LT was 11.0±0.5 months. The OS in patients with right prediction (11.1±0.6 months) was longer than patients with wrong prediction (10.1±0.9 months), but without significant difference (p> 0.05). Conclusions: Appropriate LT provided significant pain relief and improvement of quality of life. ML model is an effective tool for help physicians to identify patients with BM who may be a candidate for LT, or would get more benefit from LT.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?