4.6 Article

Deep learning model integrating positron emission tomography and clinical data for prognosis prediction in non-small cell lung cancer patients

Journal

BMC BIOINFORMATICS
Volume 24, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12859-023-05160-z

Keywords

Deep learning; Survival prediction; Lung cancer; Multimodal learning; FDG PET

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study aimed to improve survival prediction in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) by incorporating prognostic information from F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET) images into a traditional survival prediction model using clinical data. The multimodal deep learning model showed the best performance, with a C-index and mean absolute error of 0.756 and 399 days under a five-fold cross-validation, respectively, followed by ResNet3D for PET (0.749 and 405 days) and CPH for clinical data (0.747 and 583 days).
BackgroundLung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. The majority of lung cancers are non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), accounting for approximately 85% of all lung cancer types. The Cox proportional hazards model (CPH), which is the standard method for survival analysis, has several limitations. The purpose of our study was to improve survival prediction in patients with NSCLC by incorporating prognostic information from F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET) images into a traditional survival prediction model using clinical data.ResultsThe multimodal deep learning model showed the best performance, with a C-index and mean absolute error of 0.756 and 399 days under a five-fold cross-validation, respectively, followed by ResNet3D for PET (0.749 and 405 days) and CPH for clinical data (0.747 and 583 days).ConclusionThe proposed deep learning-based integrative model combining the two modalities improved the survival prediction in patients with NSCLC.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available