Predicting survival after transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma using a neural network: A Pilot Study
Background and aims Deciding when to repeat and when to stop transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) can be difficult even for experienced investigators. Our aim was to develop a survival prediction model for such patients undergoing TACE using novel ma...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Liver international 2020-03, Vol.40 (3), p.694-703 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Background and aims
Deciding when to repeat and when to stop transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) can be difficult even for experienced investigators. Our aim was to develop a survival prediction model for such patients undergoing TACE using novel machine learning algorithms and to compare it to conventional prediction scores, ART, ABCR and SNACOR.
Methods
For this retrospective analysis, 282 patients who underwent TACE for HCC at our tertiary referral centre between January 2005 and December 2017 were included in the final analysis. We built an artificial neural network (ANN) including all parameters used by the aforementioned risk scores and other clinically meaningful parameters. Following an 80:20 split, the first 225 patients were used for training; the more recently treated 20% were used for validation.
Results
The ANN had a promising performance at predicting 1‐year survival, with an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.77 ± 0.13. Internal validation yielded an AUC of 0.83 ± 0.06, a positive predictive value of 87.5% and a negative predictive value of 68.0%. The sensitivity was 77.8% and specificity 81.0%. In a head‐to‐head comparison, the ANN outperformed the aforementioned scoring systems, which yielded lower AUCs (SNACOR 0.73 ± 0.07, ABCR 0.70 ± 0.07 and ART 0.54 ± 0.08). This difference reached significance for ART (P |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1478-3223 1478-3231 |
DOI: | 10.1111/liv.14380 |