Survival prediction with Bayesian Networks in more than 6000 non-small cell lung cancer patients

Data flow, source and destination databases

An automated data flow project using MS Visual Studio 2008 was developed to retrieve data from various clinical and research databases in MAASTRO Clinic in Maastricht (MAASTRO), The Netherlands and Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto, Canada (PMH). During the data flow a common data model was applied and the data was stored in a MS SQL Server 2008 database. The data flow tasks were designed to empty and then completely re-fill the destination database, if updated source databases were available.

For MAASTRO, the source databases were a) CAT data warehouse (XML), in which data from the electronic medical file, PACS and Lantis are stored, b) Research database (SPSS) and c) Dutch government registry for survival information (XML).

For PMH, the source databases were a) Mosaiq (SQL Server), a record and verify and electronic medical file (IMPAC), b) eCancer, an in-house built data-warehouse with medical data which can export to Excel and c) Ontario cancer registry (Excel).

The data flow project was use to extract data on the first treatment of the first lung tumor of patients with a diagnosis of lung cancer. All data extraction was done fully automated. Running the data flow project in December 2009 resulted in a “lung cancer” database containing 2403 patients from MAASTRO and 9972 patients from PMH.

Patient characteristics and subsets

For this study, a total of 6372 patients were selected from the lung cancer database with the following selection criteria 1) not have known small-cell lung cancer, 2) not have known surgical treatment, 3) have known overall or T or N or M stage. Some characteristics of the MAASTRO and PMH datasets are given in Table 1. For training purposes, a MAASTRO subset was made with patients with known overall stage and known survival (N=963). For validation purposes, a PMH subset was made without patients with known metastatic disease (No M1 or Stage IV, N=1996).

Bayesian Network learning and model evaluation

Bayesian Network learning and inference was done in Hugin Researcher 7.1 (Hugin Expert A/S, Aalborg, Denmark). Different model structures were supplied by a domain expert, while the CPTs were learned from data using the expectation-maximization algorithm. The MAASTRO set was solely used for training the BN model, while the PMH set was only used to validate the BN model. During training of the model, maximum likelihood (ML) and the Bayesian information criterion (BIC) were used to evaluate different models, the latter having a penalty for model complexity. The performance metric for classifying two-year survival was the Area-Under-the-Curve (AUC) of the receiver operation curve in the PMH set.

BN models

In the current study, two BN models were built and evaluated. The first is a very simple model “Stage” consisting of two nodes: Stage and Survival. This model was learned on the described MAASTRO subset with only complete staging and survival information. This model is shown in Figure 1.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1:

BN model “Stage” with stage as the prognostic factor for survival

A second more extensive model “Stage and RT” was learned that included stages cT, cN, cM and the prescribed radiotherapy dose to the thoracic region (Figure 2). The latter was learned using the full MAASTRO set.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2:

BN model “Stage and RT” with stage as a prognostic factor and radiotherapy as a predictive factor.

Data

Table 1 shows that we were successful in extracting a large lung cancer dataset (>6000 patients) from electronic data sources in two hospitals. Probably the most striking difference between the two sets is that the PMH dataset contains more stage IV patients (62% vs. 36% at MAASTRO). The most likely cause is that PMH is an integrated cancer center in which multi-disciplinary clinics take place either in-house or in the hospital network, which means data is collected for all cancer patients. On the other hand, MAASTRO is a regional radiotherapy institute in which the radiation oncologist participates in multi-disciplinary clinics (and enters data) in the referring hospital. Only when a patient is actually referred for radiotherapy will the patient data be entered into the MAASTRO environment. The difference in stage IV patients is the most likely cause for the difference in survival, prescribed dose and chemotherapy use.

BN model “Stage”

The CPT of the survival node is shown in Table 2. Due to its simple structure and the way it as learned (using a dataset without any missing data), the CPT is equal to the probabilities in the dataset itself. The AUC of this model in the full Toronto set is 0.915 while in the non-metastatic patients it is 0.816.

The BN model confirms that patients with more advanced stages have a lower probability of survival and the AUC shows that stage is quite a powerful predictor of outcome.

BN model “Stage and RT”

The CPT of survival node is shown in Table 3. The AUC of this model in the full Toronto set is 0.917 while in the non-metastatic patients it is 0.820.

The BN model confirms that patients receiving radical (=>60Gy) have a better chance of survival and that the survival gain is stage dependent. The first result (radical radiotherapy increases survival) should be interpreted with caution as there may be a number of reasons why a stage I-IIIb patient receives a low dose. Next to non-survival related factors such as the position of the tumor and changes in practice (e.g. IMRT or IGRT introduction making higher dose possible), prescribed dose could simply be a surrogate for survival-related factors such as the general condition of the patient, the size of the tumor etc. We will investigate these relations in future work. The second result (radical radiotherapy works better in lower stage patients) should also be interpreted as it is likely that the lower stage patients simply received a higher dose.