Using Machine Learning to Leverage Biomarker Change and Predict Colorectal Cancer Recurrence.

PURPOSE: The risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) recurrence after primary treatment varies across individuals and over time. Using patients' most up-to-date information, including carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) biomarker profiles, to predict risk could improve personalized decision making. METHODS: We used electronic health record data from an integrated health system on a cohort of patients diagnosed with American Joint Committee on Cancer stage I-III CRC between 2008 and 2013 (N = 3,970) and monitored until recurrence or end of follow-up. We addressed missingness in recurrence outcomes and longitudinal CEA measures, and engineered CEA features using current and past biomarker values for inclusion in a risk prediction model. We used a discrete time Superlearner model to evaluate various algorithms for predicting recurrence. We evaluated the time-varying discrimination and calibration of the algorithms and assessed the role of individual predictors. RESULTS: Recurrence was documented in 448 (11.3%) patients. XGBoost with depth = 1 (XGB-D1) predicted recurrence substantially better than all other algorithms at all time points, with AUC ranging from 0.87 (95% CI, 0.86 to 0.88) at 6 months to 0.94 (95% CI, 0.92 to 0.96) at 54 months. The only variable used by XGB-D1 was 6-month change in log CEA. Predicted 1-year risk of recurrence was nearly zero for patients whose log CEA did not increase in the last 6 months, between 12.2% and 34.1% for patients whose log CEA increased between 0.10 and 0.40, and 43.6% for those with a log CEA increase >0.40. Compared with XGB, penalized regression approaches (lasso, ridge, and elastic net) performed poorly, with AUCs ranging from 0.58 to 0.69. CONCLUSION: A flexible, machine learning approach that incorporated longitudinal CEA information yielded a simple and high-performing model for predicting recurrence on the basis of 6-month change in log CEA.

Racial and Ethnic Bias in Risk Prediction Models for Colorectal Cancer Recurrence When Race and Ethnicity Are Omitted as Predictors.

Importance: Including race and ethnicity as a predictor in clinical risk prediction algorithms has received increased scrutiny, but there continues to be a lack of empirical studies addressing whether simply omitting race and ethnicity from the algorithms will ultimately affect decision-making for patients of minoritized racial and ethnic groups. Objective: To examine whether including race and ethnicity as a predictor in a colorectal cancer recurrence risk algorithm is associated with racial bias, defined as racial and ethnic differences in model accuracy that could potentially lead to unequal treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective prognostic study was conducted using data from a large integrated health care system in Southern California for patients with colorectal cancer who received primary treatment between 2008 and 2013 and follow-up until December 31, 2018. Data were analyzed from January 2021 to June 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Four Cox proportional hazards regression prediction models were fitted to predict time from surveillance start to cancer recurrence: (1) a race-neutral model that explicitly excluded race and ethnicity as a predictor, (2) a race-sensitive model that included race and ethnicity, (3) a model with 2-way interactions between clinical predictors and race and ethnicity, and (4) separate models by race and ethnicity. Algorithmic fairness was assessed using model calibration, discriminative ability, false-positive and false-negative rates, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). Results: The study cohort included 4230 patients (mean [SD] age, 65.3 [12.5] years; 2034 [48.1%] female; 490 [11.6%] Asian, Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander; 554 [13.1%] Black or African American; 937 [22.1%] Hispanic; and 2249 [53.1%] non-Hispanic White). The race-neutral model had worse calibration, NPV, and false-negative rates among racial and ethnic minority subgroups than non-Hispanic White individuals (eg, false-negative rate for Hispanic patients: 12.0% [95% CI, 6.0%-18.6%]; for non-Hispanic White patients: 3.1% [95% CI, 0.8%-6.2%]). Adding race and ethnicity as a predictor improved algorithmic fairness in calibration slope, discriminative ability, PPV, and false-negative rates (eg, false-negative rate for Hispanic patients: 9.2% [95% CI, 3.9%-14.9%]; for non-Hispanic White patients: 7.9% [95% CI, 4.3%-11.9%]). Inclusion of race interaction terms or using race-stratified models did not improve model fairness, likely due to small sample sizes in subgroups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this prognostic study of the racial bias in a cancer recurrence risk algorithm, removing race and ethnicity as a predictor worsened algorithmic fairness in multiple measures, which could lead to inappropriate care recommendations for patients who belong to minoritized racial and ethnic groups. Clinical algorithm development should include evaluation of fairness criteria to understand the potential consequences of removing race and ethnicity for health inequities.

Underutilization or appropriate care? Assessing adjuvant chemotherapy use and survival in 3 heterogenous subpopulations with stage II/III colorectal cancer within a large integrated health system.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines have recommended adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) for patients with high-risk stage II colon cancer, although the survival benefit is unclear. ACT is also recommended for patients with stage III colon cancer to reduce the risk of recurrence and mortality. For stage II/III rectal cancer, however, the role of perioperative chemotherapy (PCT, adjuvant or neoadjuvant) remains controversial, resulting in substantial variation in its use in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: To understand real-world use and predictors of ACT or PCT use and survival outcomes in 3 heterogeneous patient groups with colorectal cancer (CRC), and to inform the evidence gap between guideline-based care and clinical practice. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients with an initial stage II/III CRC diagnosis between 2008 and 2013 identified from Kaiser Permanente Southern California electronic health record databases. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18-74 years at diagnosis and received primary curative surgery. We fitted mixed effects logistic regression models to evaluate predictors of ACT receipt and Cox proportional hazards models on propensity score-matched (PS-matched) samples to assess the association between ACT/PCT receipt and survival. RESULTS: We included 1,690 patients with colon cancer (stage II: 820 and stage III: 870) and 587 patients with rectal cancer (stage II: 241 and stage III: 346). We found that 65% of patients with high-risk stage II colon cancer, 15% of those with stage III colon, and 15% of those with stage II/III rectal cancer did not receive ACT/PCT. Patients with stage II colon cancer with T4 stage (odds ratio [OR] = 5.79, 95% CI = 3.33 - 10.06) and a lower comorbidity score were more likely to receive ACT (high vs low Charlson score: OR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.55 - 0.87). Patients with stage III rectal cancer were more likely to receive PCT than those with stage II disease (OR = 7.85, 95% CI = 2.07 - 29.74). Patients with another cancer diagnosis prior to CRC diagnosis were less likely to receive PCT (OR = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.16 - 0.85). ACT/PCT use was associated with improved overall survival among patients with high-risk stage II colon cancer (PS-matched hazard ratio [HR] = 0.42, 95% CI = 0.25 - 0.70) and those with stage III CRC (stage III colon: PS-matched HR = 0.3, 95% CI = 0.25 - 0.36; stage III rectal: PS-matched HR = 0.2, 95% CI = 0.13 - 0.31). CONCLUSIONS: We found potential underuse of appropriate chemotherapy treatment in patients with high-risk stage II colon cancer and stage III CRC. Clinicians' and providers' decisions on ACT administration may not be fully guided by the risk of recurrence and 5-year survival benefits in stage II colon cancer. DISCLOSURES: This research was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (under R37-CA218413). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.

Use of acupuncture with acupressure in addition to standard-of-care cryotherapy to decrease chemotherapy-associated neuropathy in patients with gastrointestinal malignancies receiving oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy: Study protocol for a randomized, controlled pilot and feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Oxaliplatin is a key chemotherapeutic agent in the treatment of local and metastatic gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies. Dose density and treatment adherence can be limited by chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). Early research suggests CIPN incidence and severity may be mitigated by acupuncture, but rigorous data in GI oncology patients is limited. Here, we describe the protocol of a randomized, waitlist-controlled pilot study testing the use of preemptive of acupuncture plus acupressure to decrease CIPN and chemotherapy-related toxicities. METHODS: Patients with a GI malignancy (n = 56) with planned 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and oxaliplatin IV (FOLFOX, FOLFIRINOX) every 2 weeks are being recruited. Additional concurrent anti-neoplastic agents may be used. Enrolled patients are randomized 1:1 to a 3-month intervention of Arm A: acupuncture with acupressure and standard-of-care treatment, or Arm B: standard-of-care alone. In Arm A, on days 1 and 3 of each chemotherapy cycle a standardized acupuncture protocol is administered and patients are taught self-acupressure to perform daily between chemotherapy treatments. Patients in both arms are given standard-of-care oral and peripheral (hands/feet) ice chip cryotherapy during oxaliplatin administration. CIPN and other symptoms are assessed at baseline, 6 weeks, and 3 months from registration. The primary endpoint is CIPN severity at 3 months (EORTC-CIPN 20). Additional endpoints evaluate CIPN incidence (CTCAE, Neuropen, tuning fork); incidence of pain, fatigue, nausea, oral dysesthesia, and anxiety; and feasibility (recruitment, retention, adherence, acceptability). If warranted, trial results will inform the design of a multi-center trial to expand testing of the intervention to a larger patient cohort.

Couple Communication in Cancer: Protocol for a Multi-Method Examination.

Cancer and its treatment pose challenges that affect not only patients but also their significant others, including intimate partners. Accumulating evidence suggests that couples' ability to communicate effectively plays a major role in the psychological adjustment of both individuals and the quality of their relationship. Two key conceptual models have been proposed to account for how couple communication impacts psychological and relationship adjustment: the social-cognitive processing (SCP) model and the relationship intimacy (RI) model. These models posit different mechanisms and outcomes, and thus have different implications for intervention. The purpose of this project is to test and compare the utility of these models using comprehensive and methodologically rigorous methods. Aims are: (1) to examine the overall fit of the SCP and RI models in explaining patient and partner psychological and relationship adjustment as they occur on a day-to-day basis and over the course of 1 year; (2) to examine the fit of the models for different subgroups (males vs. females, and patients vs. partners); and (3) to examine the utility of various methods of assessing communication by examining the degree to which baseline indices from different measurement strategies predict self-reported adjustment at 1-year follow up. The study employs a longitudinal, multi-method approach to examining communication processes including: standard self-report questionnaires assessing process and outcome variables collected quarterly over the course of 1 year; smartphone-based ecological momentary assessments to sample participant reports in real time; and laboratory-based couple conversations from which we derive observational measures of communicative behavior and affective expression, as well as vocal indices of emotional arousal. Participants are patients with stage II-IV breast, colon, rectal, or lung cancer and their spouses/partners, recruited from two NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers. Results will be published in scientific journals, presented at scientific conferences, and conveyed to a larger audience through infographics and social media outlets. Findings will inform theory, measurement, and the design and implementation of efficacious interventions aimed at optimizing both patient and partner well-being.

Metastatic colorectal cancer treatment patterns according to kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog genotype in U.S. Community-based oncology practices.

INTRODUCTION: In 2008, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines were revised in light of the identification of the Kirsten Rat Sarcoma Viral Oncogene Homolog (KRAS) gene as a biomarker of nonresponse to epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors. This study sought to describe and compare real-world treatment patterns of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) according to KRAS genotype in community-based oncology practices in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from the ACORN (ACORN LLC, Memphis, TN) electronic medical record data warehouse, containing data of approximately 180,000 patients from 12 oncology practices across the United States were used. Records of adult patients with mCRC who had undergone KRAS testing between January 2008 and December 2011 were evaluated. Patient demographic characteristics, KRAS genotype, and treatment patterns were identified and compared. RESULTS: Six hundred forty-eight mCRC patients who were tested for KRAS were identified. Of these, 48.1% had wild type (WT), 42.3% mutant, and 9.6% unknown genotypes. Most patients (72.1%) were tested in 2009 or later, after the guideline revision. Bevacizumab-containing combinations were the most common first-line regimens in KRAS mutant and WT patients. Approximately 90% of patients received at least 1 line of therapy, however, WT patients received significantly more lines of therapy than KRAS mutant patients (2.6 ± 1.5 vs. 2.1 ± 1.2; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: KRAS WT and mutant genotypes had similar first-line regimens; however, WT patients received more lines of therapy. Although there does not appear to be a lag between changes in guidelines and treatment practice, professional and government organizations must keep up with the changing science and disseminate this information to oncologists in a timely manner.