Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros




Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Cancer Med ; 8(1): 128-136, 2019 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30561851

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: For Glioblastoma (GBM), various prognostic nomograms have been proposed. This study aims to evaluate machine learning models to predict patients' overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) on the basis of clinical, pathological, semantic MRI-based, and FET-PET/CT-derived information. Finally, the value of adding treatment features was evaluated. METHODS: One hundred and eighty-nine patients were retrospectively analyzed. We assessed clinical, pathological, and treatment information. The VASARI set of semantic imaging features was determined on MRIs. Metabolic information was retained from preoperative FET-PET/CT images. We generated multiple random survival forest prediction models on a patient training set and performed internal validation. Single feature class models were created including "clinical," "pathological," "MRI-based," and "FET-PET/CT-based" models, as well as combinations. Treatment features were combined with all other features. RESULTS: Of all single feature class models, the MRI-based model had the highest prediction performance on the validation set for OS (C-index: 0.61 [95% confidence interval: 0.51-0.72]) and PFS (C-index: 0.61 [0.50-0.72]). The combination of all features did increase performance above all single feature class models up to C-indices of 0.70 (0.59-0.84) and 0.68 (0.57-0.78) for OS and PFS, respectively. Adding treatment information further increased prognostic performance up to C-indices of 0.73 (0.62-0.84) and 0.71 (0.60-0.81) on the validation set for OS and PFS, respectively, allowing significant stratification of patient groups for OS. CONCLUSIONS: MRI-based features were the most relevant feature class for prognostic assessment. Combining clinical, pathological, and imaging information increased predictive power for OS and PFS. A further increase was achieved by adding treatment features.


Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Encefálicas/clasificación , Glioblastoma/clasificación , Aprendizaje Automático , Modelos Teóricos , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Neoplasias Encefálicas/diagnóstico por imagen , Neoplasias Encefálicas/patología , Neoplasias Encefálicas/radioterapia , Quimioterapia Adyuvante , Femenino , Glioblastoma/diagnóstico por imagen , Glioblastoma/patología , Glioblastoma/radioterapia , Humanos , Imagen por Resonancia Magnética , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Imagen Multimodal , Tomografía Computarizada por Tomografía de Emisión de Positrones , Pronóstico , Análisis de Supervivencia , Adulto Joven
2.
Strahlenther Onkol ; 194(9): 824-834, 2018 09.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29557486

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Current prognostic models for soft tissue sarcoma (STS) patients are solely based on staging information. Treatment-related data have not been included to date. Including such information, however, could help to improve these models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single-center retrospective cohort of 136 STS patients treated with radiotherapy (RT) was analyzed for patients' characteristics, staging information, and treatment-related data. Therapeutic imaging studies and pathology reports of neoadjuvantly treated patients were analyzed for signs of response. Random forest machine learning-based models were used to predict patients' death and disease progression at 2 years. Pre-treatment and treatment models were compared. RESULTS: The prognostic models achieved high performances. Using treatment features improved the overall performance for all three classification types: prediction of death, and of local and systemic progression (area under the receiver operatoring characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.87, 0.88, and 0.84, respectively). Overall, RT-related features, such as the planning target volume and total dose, had preeminent importance for prognostic performance. Therapy response features were selected for prediction of disease progression. CONCLUSIONS: A machine learning-based prognostic model combining known prognostic factors with treatment- and response-related information showed high accuracy for individualized risk assessment. This model could be used for adjustments of follow-up procedures.


Asunto(s)
Aprendizaje Automático , Modelos de Riesgos Proporcionales , Sarcoma/patología , Sarcoma/radioterapia , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Estudios de Cohortes , Progresión de la Enfermedad , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Terapia Neoadyuvante , Estadificación de Neoplasias , Pronóstico , Estudios Retrospectivos , Medición de Riesgo , Sarcoma/mortalidad , Tasa de Supervivencia
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA