Prognostic Models for Nonmetastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Based on the Pretreatment Serum Tumor Markers with Machine Learning

Purpose. Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a heterogeneous and aggressive disease with poorer prognosis than other subtypes. We aimed to investigate the prognostic efficacy of multiple tumor markers and constructed a prognostic model for stage I-III TNBC patients. Patients and Methods. We incl...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of oncology 2021, Vol.2021, p.6641421-13
Hauptverfasser: Chen, Huihui, Wu, Shijie, Hu, Jun, Zhang, Kun, Hu, Kaimin, Lu, Yuexin, He, Jiapan, Pan, Tao, Chen, Yiding
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 13
container_issue
container_start_page 6641421
container_title Journal of oncology
container_volume 2021
creator Chen, Huihui
Wu, Shijie
Hu, Jun
Zhang, Kun
Hu, Kaimin
Lu, Yuexin
He, Jiapan
Pan, Tao
Chen, Yiding
description Purpose. Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a heterogeneous and aggressive disease with poorer prognosis than other subtypes. We aimed to investigate the prognostic efficacy of multiple tumor markers and constructed a prognostic model for stage I-III TNBC patients. Patients and Methods. We included stage I-III TNBC patients whose serum tumor markers levels were measured prior to the treatment. The optimal cut-off value of each tumor marker was determined by X-tile. Then, we adopted two survival models (lasso Cox model and random survival forest model) to build the prognostic model and AUC values of the time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) were calculated. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to plot the survival curves and the log-rank test was used to test whether there was a significant difference between the predicted high-risk and low-risk groups. We used univariable and multivariable Cox analysis to identify independent prognostic factors and did subgroup analysis further for the lasso Cox model. Results. We included 258 stage I-III TNBC patients. CEA, CA125, and CA211 showed independent prognostic value for DFS when using the optimal cut-off values; their HRs and 95% CI were as follows: 1.787 (1.056–3.226), 2.684 (1.200–3.931), and 2.513 (1.567–4.877). AUC values of lasso Cox model and random survival forest model were 0.740 and 0.663 for DFS at 60 months, respectively. Both the lasso Cox model and random survival forest model demonstrated excellent prognostic value. According to tumor marker risk scores (TMRS) computed by the lasso Cox model, the high TMRS group had worse DFS (HR = 3.138, 95% CI: 1.711–5.033, p
doi_str_mv 10.1155/2021/6641421
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8147528</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A696899665</galeid><sourcerecordid>A696899665</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c433t-787f46f0d248a07aac8e93e929832ed88f6224e420953021686bc0c7dec9827f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kk1vFCEYxydGY2v15tmQeDHRscAAA5cm7ca3ZFubuJ4JZZ7Zpc7ACkwbP4DfWya71urBEzz5__J_XqvqOcFvCeH8mGJKjoVghFHyoDokQra1ZBw_vPc_qJ6kdI2xYFiJx9VBwzBnivPD6udlDGsfUnYWnYcOhoT6ENFF8CNkk7KZhVV02wHqC1iX8AbQWYQioYXxFiI6Mwk6FDzKG0CXEXJR8wg-oy8QpxGtprE4npv4DWJCty5vSmA3zgNagone-fXT6lFvhgTP9u9R9fX9u9XiY738_OHT4nRZW9Y0uW5l2zPR444yaXBrjJWgGlBUyYZCJ2UvKGXAKFa8KWMRUlxZbNsOrJK07Zuj6mTnu52uRuhsKTKaQW-jG038oYNx-m_Fu41ehxstCWs5lcXg1d4ghu8TpKxHlywMg_EQpqQpbzgp2Rku6Mt_0OswRV_amynGaCOa9g-1NgNo5_tQ8trZVJ8KJaRSQvBCvdlRNoaUIvR3JROs5yvQ8xXo_RUU_MX9Nu_g32svwOsdULbQmVv3f7tfaF-52g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2534423637</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Prognostic Models for Nonmetastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Based on the Pretreatment Serum Tumor Markers with Machine Learning</title><source>Electronic Journals Library</source><source>Open Access: Wiley-Blackwell Open Access Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><creator>Chen, Huihui ; Wu, Shijie ; Hu, Jun ; Zhang, Kun ; Hu, Kaimin ; Lu, Yuexin ; He, Jiapan ; Pan, Tao ; Chen, Yiding</creator><contributor>Liu, Zhixiong ; Zhixiong Liu</contributor><creatorcontrib>Chen, Huihui ; Wu, Shijie ; Hu, Jun ; Zhang, Kun ; Hu, Kaimin ; Lu, Yuexin ; He, Jiapan ; Pan, Tao ; Chen, Yiding ; Liu, Zhixiong ; Zhixiong Liu</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose. Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a heterogeneous and aggressive disease with poorer prognosis than other subtypes. We aimed to investigate the prognostic efficacy of multiple tumor markers and constructed a prognostic model for stage I-III TNBC patients. Patients and Methods. We included stage I-III TNBC patients whose serum tumor markers levels were measured prior to the treatment. The optimal cut-off value of each tumor marker was determined by X-tile. Then, we adopted two survival models (lasso Cox model and random survival forest model) to build the prognostic model and AUC values of the time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) were calculated. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to plot the survival curves and the log-rank test was used to test whether there was a significant difference between the predicted high-risk and low-risk groups. We used univariable and multivariable Cox analysis to identify independent prognostic factors and did subgroup analysis further for the lasso Cox model. Results. We included 258 stage I-III TNBC patients. CEA, CA125, and CA211 showed independent prognostic value for DFS when using the optimal cut-off values; their HRs and 95% CI were as follows: 1.787 (1.056–3.226), 2.684 (1.200–3.931), and 2.513 (1.567–4.877). AUC values of lasso Cox model and random survival forest model were 0.740 and 0.663 for DFS at 60 months, respectively. Both the lasso Cox model and random survival forest model demonstrated excellent prognostic value. According to tumor marker risk scores (TMRS) computed by the lasso Cox model, the high TMRS group had worse DFS (HR = 3.138, 95% CI: 1.711–5.033, p&lt;0.0001) and OS (3.983, 1.637–7.214, p=0.0011) than low TMRS group. Furthermore, subgroup analysis of N0-N1 patients in the lasso Cox model indicated that TMRS still had a significant prognostic effect on DFS (2.278, 1.189–4.346) and OS (2.982, 1.110–7.519). Conclusions. Our study indicated that pretreatment levels of serum CEA, CA125, and CA211 had independent prognostic significance for TNBC patients. Both lasso Cox model and random survival forest model that we constructed based on tumor markers could strongly predict the survival risk. Higher TMRS was associated with worse DFS and OS both in stage I-III and N0-N1 TNBC patients.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1687-8450</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1687-8450</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1155/2021/6641421</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34054955</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Egypt: Hindawi</publisher><subject>Algorithms ; Analysis ; Antigens ; Biomarkers ; Breast cancer ; Cancer therapies ; Care and treatment ; Chemotherapy ; Lymphatic system ; Machine learning ; Medical prognosis ; Metastasis ; Mortality ; Patients ; Prognosis ; Support vector machines ; Surgery ; Tumor markers ; Variance analysis</subject><ispartof>Journal of oncology, 2021, Vol.2021, p.6641421-13</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2021 Huihui Chen et al.</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2021 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2021 Huihui Chen et al. This work is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2021 Huihui Chen et al. 2021</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c433t-787f46f0d248a07aac8e93e929832ed88f6224e420953021686bc0c7dec9827f3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-2263-6275 ; 0000-0002-4765-7486 ; 0000-0003-1950-0112 ; 0000-0003-3058-2710 ; 0000-0001-7345-5979 ; 0000-0002-6198-2701 ; 0000-0002-1672-3954 ; 0000-0002-3905-7907 ; 0000-0002-4290-7204</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8147528/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8147528/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,881,4010,27900,27901,27902,53766,53768</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34054955$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Liu, Zhixiong</contributor><contributor>Zhixiong Liu</contributor><creatorcontrib>Chen, Huihui</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wu, Shijie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hu, Jun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Kun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hu, Kaimin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lu, Yuexin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>He, Jiapan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pan, Tao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Yiding</creatorcontrib><title>Prognostic Models for Nonmetastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Based on the Pretreatment Serum Tumor Markers with Machine Learning</title><title>Journal of oncology</title><addtitle>J Oncol</addtitle><description>Purpose. Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a heterogeneous and aggressive disease with poorer prognosis than other subtypes. We aimed to investigate the prognostic efficacy of multiple tumor markers and constructed a prognostic model for stage I-III TNBC patients. Patients and Methods. We included stage I-III TNBC patients whose serum tumor markers levels were measured prior to the treatment. The optimal cut-off value of each tumor marker was determined by X-tile. Then, we adopted two survival models (lasso Cox model and random survival forest model) to build the prognostic model and AUC values of the time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) were calculated. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to plot the survival curves and the log-rank test was used to test whether there was a significant difference between the predicted high-risk and low-risk groups. We used univariable and multivariable Cox analysis to identify independent prognostic factors and did subgroup analysis further for the lasso Cox model. Results. We included 258 stage I-III TNBC patients. CEA, CA125, and CA211 showed independent prognostic value for DFS when using the optimal cut-off values; their HRs and 95% CI were as follows: 1.787 (1.056–3.226), 2.684 (1.200–3.931), and 2.513 (1.567–4.877). AUC values of lasso Cox model and random survival forest model were 0.740 and 0.663 for DFS at 60 months, respectively. Both the lasso Cox model and random survival forest model demonstrated excellent prognostic value. According to tumor marker risk scores (TMRS) computed by the lasso Cox model, the high TMRS group had worse DFS (HR = 3.138, 95% CI: 1.711–5.033, p&lt;0.0001) and OS (3.983, 1.637–7.214, p=0.0011) than low TMRS group. Furthermore, subgroup analysis of N0-N1 patients in the lasso Cox model indicated that TMRS still had a significant prognostic effect on DFS (2.278, 1.189–4.346) and OS (2.982, 1.110–7.519). Conclusions. Our study indicated that pretreatment levels of serum CEA, CA125, and CA211 had independent prognostic significance for TNBC patients. Both lasso Cox model and random survival forest model that we constructed based on tumor markers could strongly predict the survival risk. Higher TMRS was associated with worse DFS and OS both in stage I-III and N0-N1 TNBC patients.</description><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Antigens</subject><subject>Biomarkers</subject><subject>Breast cancer</subject><subject>Cancer therapies</subject><subject>Care and treatment</subject><subject>Chemotherapy</subject><subject>Lymphatic system</subject><subject>Machine learning</subject><subject>Medical prognosis</subject><subject>Metastasis</subject><subject>Mortality</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Prognosis</subject><subject>Support vector machines</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Tumor markers</subject><subject>Variance analysis</subject><issn>1687-8450</issn><issn>1687-8450</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>RHX</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kk1vFCEYxydGY2v15tmQeDHRscAAA5cm7ca3ZFubuJ4JZZ7Zpc7ACkwbP4DfWya71urBEzz5__J_XqvqOcFvCeH8mGJKjoVghFHyoDokQra1ZBw_vPc_qJ6kdI2xYFiJx9VBwzBnivPD6udlDGsfUnYWnYcOhoT6ENFF8CNkk7KZhVV02wHqC1iX8AbQWYQioYXxFiI6Mwk6FDzKG0CXEXJR8wg-oy8QpxGtprE4npv4DWJCty5vSmA3zgNagone-fXT6lFvhgTP9u9R9fX9u9XiY738_OHT4nRZW9Y0uW5l2zPR444yaXBrjJWgGlBUyYZCJ2UvKGXAKFa8KWMRUlxZbNsOrJK07Zuj6mTnu52uRuhsKTKaQW-jG038oYNx-m_Fu41ehxstCWs5lcXg1d4ghu8TpKxHlywMg_EQpqQpbzgp2Rku6Mt_0OswRV_amynGaCOa9g-1NgNo5_tQ8trZVJ8KJaRSQvBCvdlRNoaUIvR3JROs5yvQ8xXo_RUU_MX9Nu_g32svwOsdULbQmVv3f7tfaF-52g</recordid><startdate>2021</startdate><enddate>2021</enddate><creator>Chen, Huihui</creator><creator>Wu, Shijie</creator><creator>Hu, Jun</creator><creator>Zhang, Kun</creator><creator>Hu, Kaimin</creator><creator>Lu, Yuexin</creator><creator>He, Jiapan</creator><creator>Pan, Tao</creator><creator>Chen, Yiding</creator><general>Hindawi</general><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</general><general>Hindawi Limited</general><scope>RHU</scope><scope>RHW</scope><scope>RHX</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2263-6275</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4765-7486</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1950-0112</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3058-2710</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7345-5979</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6198-2701</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1672-3954</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3905-7907</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4290-7204</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>2021</creationdate><title>Prognostic Models for Nonmetastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Based on the Pretreatment Serum Tumor Markers with Machine Learning</title><author>Chen, Huihui ; Wu, Shijie ; Hu, Jun ; Zhang, Kun ; Hu, Kaimin ; Lu, Yuexin ; He, Jiapan ; Pan, Tao ; Chen, Yiding</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c433t-787f46f0d248a07aac8e93e929832ed88f6224e420953021686bc0c7dec9827f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Antigens</topic><topic>Biomarkers</topic><topic>Breast cancer</topic><topic>Cancer therapies</topic><topic>Care and treatment</topic><topic>Chemotherapy</topic><topic>Lymphatic system</topic><topic>Machine learning</topic><topic>Medical prognosis</topic><topic>Metastasis</topic><topic>Mortality</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Prognosis</topic><topic>Support vector machines</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Tumor markers</topic><topic>Variance analysis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Chen, Huihui</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wu, Shijie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hu, Jun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Kun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hu, Kaimin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lu, Yuexin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>He, Jiapan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pan, Tao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Yiding</creatorcontrib><collection>Hindawi Publishing Complete</collection><collection>Hindawi Publishing Subscription Journals</collection><collection>Hindawi Publishing Open Access Journals</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Proquest)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of oncology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Chen, Huihui</au><au>Wu, Shijie</au><au>Hu, Jun</au><au>Zhang, Kun</au><au>Hu, Kaimin</au><au>Lu, Yuexin</au><au>He, Jiapan</au><au>Pan, Tao</au><au>Chen, Yiding</au><au>Liu, Zhixiong</au><au>Zhixiong Liu</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Prognostic Models for Nonmetastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Based on the Pretreatment Serum Tumor Markers with Machine Learning</atitle><jtitle>Journal of oncology</jtitle><addtitle>J Oncol</addtitle><date>2021</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>2021</volume><spage>6641421</spage><epage>13</epage><pages>6641421-13</pages><issn>1687-8450</issn><eissn>1687-8450</eissn><abstract>Purpose. Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a heterogeneous and aggressive disease with poorer prognosis than other subtypes. We aimed to investigate the prognostic efficacy of multiple tumor markers and constructed a prognostic model for stage I-III TNBC patients. Patients and Methods. We included stage I-III TNBC patients whose serum tumor markers levels were measured prior to the treatment. The optimal cut-off value of each tumor marker was determined by X-tile. Then, we adopted two survival models (lasso Cox model and random survival forest model) to build the prognostic model and AUC values of the time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) were calculated. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to plot the survival curves and the log-rank test was used to test whether there was a significant difference between the predicted high-risk and low-risk groups. We used univariable and multivariable Cox analysis to identify independent prognostic factors and did subgroup analysis further for the lasso Cox model. Results. We included 258 stage I-III TNBC patients. CEA, CA125, and CA211 showed independent prognostic value for DFS when using the optimal cut-off values; their HRs and 95% CI were as follows: 1.787 (1.056–3.226), 2.684 (1.200–3.931), and 2.513 (1.567–4.877). AUC values of lasso Cox model and random survival forest model were 0.740 and 0.663 for DFS at 60 months, respectively. Both the lasso Cox model and random survival forest model demonstrated excellent prognostic value. According to tumor marker risk scores (TMRS) computed by the lasso Cox model, the high TMRS group had worse DFS (HR = 3.138, 95% CI: 1.711–5.033, p&lt;0.0001) and OS (3.983, 1.637–7.214, p=0.0011) than low TMRS group. Furthermore, subgroup analysis of N0-N1 patients in the lasso Cox model indicated that TMRS still had a significant prognostic effect on DFS (2.278, 1.189–4.346) and OS (2.982, 1.110–7.519). Conclusions. Our study indicated that pretreatment levels of serum CEA, CA125, and CA211 had independent prognostic significance for TNBC patients. Both lasso Cox model and random survival forest model that we constructed based on tumor markers could strongly predict the survival risk. Higher TMRS was associated with worse DFS and OS both in stage I-III and N0-N1 TNBC patients.</abstract><cop>Egypt</cop><pub>Hindawi</pub><pmid>34054955</pmid><doi>10.1155/2021/6641421</doi><tpages>13</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2263-6275</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4765-7486</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1950-0112</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3058-2710</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7345-5979</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6198-2701</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1672-3954</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3905-7907</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4290-7204</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1687-8450
ispartof Journal of oncology, 2021, Vol.2021, p.6641421-13
issn 1687-8450
1687-8450
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8147528
source Electronic Journals Library; Open Access: Wiley-Blackwell Open Access Journals; PubMed Central; Alma/SFX Local Collection; PubMed Central Open Access
subjects Algorithms
Analysis
Antigens
Biomarkers
Breast cancer
Cancer therapies
Care and treatment
Chemotherapy
Lymphatic system
Machine learning
Medical prognosis
Metastasis
Mortality
Patients
Prognosis
Support vector machines
Surgery
Tumor markers
Variance analysis
title Prognostic Models for Nonmetastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Based on the Pretreatment Serum Tumor Markers with Machine Learning
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-01T07%3A31%3A58IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Prognostic%20Models%20for%20Nonmetastatic%20Triple-Negative%20Breast%20Cancer%20Based%20on%20the%20Pretreatment%20Serum%20Tumor%20Markers%20with%20Machine%20Learning&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20oncology&rft.au=Chen,%20Huihui&rft.date=2021&rft.volume=2021&rft.spage=6641421&rft.epage=13&rft.pages=6641421-13&rft.issn=1687-8450&rft.eissn=1687-8450&rft_id=info:doi/10.1155/2021/6641421&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA696899665%3C/gale_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2534423637&rft_id=info:pmid/34054955&rft_galeid=A696899665&rfr_iscdi=true