A Machine Learning Model Based on Counterfactual Theory for Treatment Decision of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients
Xiaoqin Wei,Fang Wang,Ying Liu,Zeyong Li,Zhong Xue,Mingyue Tang,Xiaowen Chen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/jhc.s470550
2024-09-01
Journal of Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Abstract:Xiaoqin Wei, 1, &ast Fang Wang, 2, &ast Ying Liu, 3 Zeyong Li, 4 Zhong Xue, 2 Mingyue Tang, 5 Xiaowen Chen 1 1 School of Medical Imaging, North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong City, Sichuan Province, People's Republic of China; 2 Department of Research and Development, Shanghai United Imaging Intelligence Co., Ltd, Shanghai, People's Republic of China; 3 Department of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chengdu Medical College, Chengdu City, Sichuan Province, People's Republic of China; 4 Department of Radiology, Bishan Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, ChongQing, People's Republic of China; 5 Department of Physics, School of Basic Medicine, North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, People's Republic of China &astThese authors contributed equally to this work Correspondence: Xiaowen Chen, School of Medical Imaging, North Sichuan Medical College, 234 Fujiang Road, Nanchong City, Sichuan Province, People's Republic of China, 637001, Email Purpose: To predict the efficacy of patients treated with hepatectomy and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) based on machine learning models using clinical and radiomics features. Patients and Methods: Patients with HCC whose first treatment was hepatectomy or TACE from June 2016 to July 2021 were collected in the retrospective cohort study. To ensure a causal effect of treatment effect and treatment modality, perfectly matched patients were obtained according to the principle of propensity score matching and used as an independent test cohort. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to control bias for unmatched patients, and the weighted results were used as the training cohort. Clinical characteristics were selected by univariate and multivariate analysis of cox proportional hazards regression, and radiomics features were selected using correlation analysis and random survival forest. The machine learning models (Death hepatectomy and Death TACE ) were constructed to predict the probability of patient death after treatment (hepatectomy and TACE) by combining clinical and radiomics features, and an optimal treatment regimen was recommended. In addition, a prognostic model was constructed to predict the survival time of all patients. Results: A total of 418 patients with HCC who received either hepatectomy (n=267, mean age, 58 years ± 11 [standard deviation]; 228 men) or TACE (n=151, mean age, 59 years ± 13 [standard deviation]; 127 men) were recruited. After constructing the machine learning models Death hepatectomy and Death TACE , patients were divided into the hepatectomy-preferred and TACE-preferred groups. In the hepatectomy-preferred group, hepatectomy had a significantly prolonged survival time than TACE (training cohort: P < 0.001; testing cohort: P < 0.001), and vise versa for the TACE-preferred group. In addition, the prognostic model yielded high predictive capability for overall survival. Conclusion: The machine learning models could predict the outcomes difference between hepatectomy and TACE, and prognostic models could predict the overall survival for HCC patients. Keywords: radiomics, hepatocellular carcinoma, prognosis, hepatectomy Different treatment guidelines were proposed to provide appropriate treatment options for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients, such as China Liver Cancer (CNLC) staging 1 and Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging. 2 However, they might be inadequate for clinical decision-making. First, there is disagreement among treatment guidelines over the recommended treatment regimens. In CNLC, hepatectomy is recommended for patients with Ia, Ib, and IIa stages, and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is recommended for patients with IIb, IIIa, and some IIIb stages. 1 In BCLC, patients with Ia and Ib stages are defined as 0 or A stage, IIa and IIb are defined as B stage, and IIIa and IIIb are defined as C stage. 2 Hepatectomy, TACE, and systemic treatments are recommended for different stages respectively. 2 Second, there exists heterogeneity among patients at the same stage, and survival times for patients even with the same treatment regimen are different. 3,4 Finally, in clinical practice, 50% of patients have deviated from their original recommendations based on the treatment guidelines. 4,5 Therefore, the treatment regimens for HCC patients are still unclear. Several studies 6–10 have found that TACE and hepatectomy have similar survival rates for patients with early-stage HCC. The question of which treat -Abstract Truncated-
oncology