Predicting Response to Treatment and Survival in Advanced Ovarian Cancer Using Machine Learning and Radiomics: A Systematic Review.

Sabrina Piedimonte, Mariam Mohamed, Gabriela Rosa, Brigit Gerstl, Danielle Vicus
Author Information
  1. Sabrina Piedimonte: Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Hospital Maisonneuve Rosemont, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC H3T 1J4, Canada.
  2. Mariam Mohamed: Faculty of Medicine, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC H3T 1J4, Canada.
  3. Gabriela Rosa: The Rosa Institute, Melbourne, ACT 2001, Australia.
  4. Brigit Gerstl: The Rosa Institute, Melbourne, ACT 2001, Australia.
  5. Danielle Vicus: Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, Toronto, ON M4N 0A4, Canada.

Abstract

Machine learning and radiomics (ML/RM) are gaining interest in ovarian cancer (OC) but only a few studies have used these methods to predict treatment response. The objective of this study was to review the literature on the applications of ML/RM in OC assessments, specifically focusing on studies describing algorithms to predict treatment response and survival. This is a systematic review of the published literature from January 1985 to December 2023 on the use of ML/RM in OC An extensive search of electronic library databases was conducted. Two independent reviewers screened the articles initially by title then by full text. Quality was assessed using the MINORS criteria. -values were generated using the Pearson's Chi-squared (x) test to compare the performances of ML/RM models with traditional statistics. Of the 5576 screened articles, 225 studies were included. Between 2021 and 2023, 49 studies were published, highlighting the rapidly growing interest in ML/RM. Median-quality scores using the MINORS scale were similar between studies published between 1985-2021 and 2021-2023 (both 8). Neural Networks (22.6%) and LASSO (15.3%) were the most common ML/RM algorithms in OC. Among these studies, 13 focused specifically on prediction of treatment response using radiomics. A total of 5113 patients were analyzed. The most common algorithms were Random Forest (4/13) followed by Neural Networks (3/13) and Support Vectors (3/13). Radiomic analysis was used to predict response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in seven studies, with a median AUC of 0.77 (range 0.72-0.93), while the median AUC was 0.82 (range 0.77-0.89) in the six studies assessing the prediction of optimal or complete cytoreduction. Median model accuracy reported in 7/13 studies was 73% (range 66-98%). Additionally, four studies investigated the use of ML/RM for survival prediction for OC. The XGBoost model had 80.9% accuracy in predicting 5-year survival compared to linear regression, which achieved 79% accuracy. The Random Forest model has 93.7% accuracy in predicting 12-month progression-free survival, compared to 82% for linear regression. In conclusion, we found that the use of ML/RM algorithms is becoming a more frequent method to predict responses to treatment of OC. These models should be validated in a prospective multicenter trial prior to integration into clinical use.

Keywords

References

  1. Nat Commun. 2023 Oct 24;14(1):6756 [PMID: 37875466]
  2. Radiology. 2016 Feb;278(2):563-77 [PMID: 26579733]
  3. Surg Oncol. 2019 Jun;29:120-125 [PMID: 31196475]
  4. J Med Internet Res. 2024 Jan 22;26:e48527 [PMID: 38252469]
  5. Front Oncol. 2022 Jun 16;12:868265 [PMID: 35785153]
  6. Gynecol Oncol. 2019 Jul;154(1):72-76 [PMID: 31000471]
  7. Comput Math Methods Med. 2015;2015:259474 [PMID: 26146513]
  8. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2023 Mar 06;14:1145797 [PMID: 36950684]
  9. J Ovarian Res. 2020 Sep 29;13(1):117 [PMID: 32993745]
  10. Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Aug;138(2):246-51 [PMID: 26037900]
  11. N Engl J Med. 2018 Dec 27;379(26):2495-2505 [PMID: 30345884]
  12. Gynecol Oncol. 2022 Dec;167(3):417-422 [PMID: 37191644]
  13. Gynecol Oncol. 2021 Feb;160(2):438-444 [PMID: 33272645]
  14. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018 Aug;15(8):1133-1138 [PMID: 29789232]
  15. Gynecol Oncol. 2024 Aug;187:92-97 [PMID: 38735145]
  16. J Clin Oncol. 2024 Oct 20;42(30):3550-3560 [PMID: 39083703]
  17. Ann Surg. 2022 Aug 1;276(2):363-369 [PMID: 33196488]
  18. N Engl J Med. 2019 Jun 27;380(26):2588-2589 [PMID: 31242380]
  19. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2021 Feb 23;9:644940 [PMID: 33708773]
  20. BMJ. 2009 Jul 21;339:b2700 [PMID: 19622552]
  21. J Clin Oncol. 2002 Mar 1;20(5):1248-59 [PMID: 11870167]
  22. J Surg Oncol. 2022 Nov;126(6):1096-1103 [PMID: 35819161]
  23. ANZ J Surg. 2003 Sep;73(9):712-6 [PMID: 12956787]
  24. Radiol Technol. 2020 Jul;91(6):561-575 [PMID: 32606233]
  25. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2023 May;57(5):1340-1349 [PMID: 36054024]
  26. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2023 Sep 4;33(9):1383-1393 [PMID: 37666535]
  27. Gynecol Oncol. 2012 Jan;124(1):10-4 [PMID: 21917306]
  28. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015 Nov;22(12):3970-5 [PMID: 25752894]
  29. Annu Rev Pathol. 2009;4:287-313 [PMID: 18842102]
  30. Gynecol Oncol. 2022 Sep;166(3):453-459 [PMID: 35820987]
  31. Biomed Pharmacother. 2021 Jan;133:111013 [PMID: 33227705]
  32. Br J Cancer. 2022 Apr;126(7):1047-1054 [PMID: 34923575]
  33. Arch Comput Methods Eng. 2023 Mar 31;:1-29 [PMID: 37359744]
  34. Acad Radiol. 2024 Jun;31(6):2367-2380 [PMID: 38129227]
  35. Radiographics. 2021 Oct;41(6):1717-1732 [PMID: 34597235]
  36. J Surg Oncol. 2023 Mar;127(3):465-472 [PMID: 36350138]
  37. Acad Radiol. 2023 Sep;30 Suppl 2:S192-S201 [PMID: 37336707]
  38. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007 Jan-Feb;57(1):43-66 [PMID: 17237035]
  39. Cancer Control. 2023 Jan-Dec;30:10732748231159553 [PMID: 36847148]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0studiesML/RMOCtreatmentpredictresponsealgorithmssurvivaluseusingprediction0accuracyradiomicspublishedrangemodelMachinelearninginterestovariancancerusedreviewliteraturespecifically2023screenedarticlesMINORSmodelsNeuralNetworkscommonRandomForest3/13medianAUC93predictingcomparedlinearregressiongainingmethodsobjectivestudyapplicationsassessmentsfocusingdescribingsystematicJanuary1985DecemberextensivesearchelectroniclibrarydatabasesconductedTwoindependentreviewersinitiallytitlefulltextQualityassessedcriteria-valuesgeneratedPearson'sChi-squaredxtestcompareperformancestraditionalstatistics5576225included202149highlightingrapidlygrowingMedian-qualityscoresscalesimilar1985-20212021-20238226%LASSO153%Among13focusedtotal5113patientsanalyzed4/13followedSupportVectorsRadiomicanalysisneoadjuvantchemotherapyseven7772-08277-089sixassessingoptimalcompletecytoreductionMedianreported7/1373%66-98%AdditionallyfourinvestigatedXGBoost809%5-yearachieved79%7%12-monthprogression-free82%conclusionfoundbecomingfrequentmethodresponsesvalidatedprospectivemulticentertrialpriorintegrationclinicalPredictingResponseTreatmentSurvivalAdvancedOvarianCancerUsingLearningRadiomics:SystematicReviewmachine

Similar Articles

Cited By