Comparative analysis of the spatial distribution of brain metastases across several primary cancers using machine learning and deep learning models

A. Dataset

Data used in this analysis is taken from IRRF and all patients underwent GKRS for the treatment of brain metastases which are labeled based on the primary cancer types Breast, Lung, Melanoma, Renal, and Colon. The dataset consists of six features including sex, age, target volume, and stereotactic Cartesian coordinates X, Y, and Z of a total of 3949 intracranial metastases. See the data summarized in Table I and Table II.

B. Principal component analysis (PCA)

The principal component coordinates are a data driven orthogonal coordinate system intended to highlight the directions of the greatest spread of the data, with PC1 as the direction of the largest variance and PC2 and PC3 as the directions that capture the remaining variations orthogonal to the first principal component and to each other. PCA is used to identify patterns in a dataset and as a method of dimensionality reduction for high dimensional datasets by identifying new uncorrelated features (PC), which allows better visualization of the dataset [12]. We use PCA from the Scikit-learn library in Python for our analysis [13].

C. Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique (SMOTE)

In essence, SMOTE is a data augmentation method used to address a class imbalance in supervised machine learning problems. Class imbalance occurs when one class of a classification problem has significantly fewer samples than the other classes, which can lead to poor performance of the classifier on the minority class. SMOTE creates synthetic samples of the minority class by interpolating between existing minority class samples. The method selects a minority class sample and identifies its k nearest neighbors in the feature space. SMOTE then creates a new sample by randomly selecting one of the “k” nearest neighbors and creating a synthetic sample between the original sample and each of its neighbors that is a linear combination of the original and selected neighbors. The process repeats until the desired balance between the classes is achieved. The synthetic samples created by SMOTE increase the size of the minority class, making it more representative and improving the classifier’s ability to learn the patterns in the minority class [14].

D. Dataset Preprocessing

PCA is sensitive to the scaling of the variables in the dataset. Variables that have larger magnitudes will dominate the variance and may obscure the contribution of other variables that have smaller magnitudes. Scaling the variables to a common scale ensures that all variables are equally important in the analysis. Different variables in the dataset have different units of measurement, and these units can affect the calculation of the principal components. Scaling the variables to unit variance (i.e., standardizing) removes the units of measurement and allows the components to be calculated based on the correlations between the variables. In order to ensure that the result of the PCA is representative of the underlying patterns in the data, we scale our features before performing the PCA. We use the StandardScaler from the Scikitlearn package in Python which set the mean to zero and the variance to one [13]. In order to reduce the effect of class imbalance in the dataset, we use the Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique using the SMOTE from the imbalanced-learn library in Python [15]. We split up the dataset into 90% training and 10% testing. The reported evaluation metrics in Table III correspond to the testing dataset.

E. Random Forest (RF)

Random Forest is a supervised machine learning algorithm for classification and regression tasks. It is an ensemble learning method that combines multiple decision trees to make a final prediction. During the training process, Random Forest builds a large number of decision trees by using a randomly selected portion of the training data along with a randomly selected subset of the available features. Each tree is built independently, and at each split, the algorithm selects the best feature to split on among a random subset of features. This randomness helps reduce overfitting and improves the model’s generalization performance. Once the trees are built, the Random Forest algorithm combines their predictions to make a final prediction. In classification tasks, the class with the most votes is selected, and in regression tasks, the mean or median of the individual tree predictions is taken [16]. A random forest classifier is built based on RandomForestClassifier from the Scikit-learn package [13].

F. Support Vector Machine (SVM) and One v. All (OvA)

The linear SVM algorithm aims to find a hyperplane that separates two tumor classes to maximize the distance between the hyperplane and the nearest samples from each class. In order to determine the maximum separation distance between classes, the dot products of support vectors and the classes must be computed [17]. The main concept behind this is identifying the largest margin between the classes. In cases where the data is not linearly separable, SVMs can use a kernel function to transform the data into a higher dimensional space that a hyperplane can separate. The kernel functions used in this study are linear, polynomial, and radial basis functions. For transitioning from binary to multiclass classification, we adopt a One-vs-All (OvA) approach [18]. The OvA strategy involves training multiple binary classifiers, each distinguishing one class from all the others. For each class, a binary classifier is trained to distinguish between that class and all the other classes combined. This results in a set of binary classifiers, one for each class. The classifier with the highest confidence score is selected as the predicted class during prediction. This study uses three different kernels: Radial Basis Function, Polynomial, and Linear kernel. For our analysis, we utilize the SVC algorithm from the Scikit-learn library in Python [13].

G. TabNet

Deep learning algorithms have generally been successful in classifying images or audio but not tabular data [19]. TabNet, a deep neural network (DNN) tailored for learning from tabular data, employs a distinctive architecture known as the TabNet encoder [20]. In this architecture, sequential multi-steps (Nsteps) are a pivotal component. Each step, denoted as i, leverages processed information from the previous step (i −1) to make decisions regarding feature utilization. These decisions culminate in processed feature representations, which, in turn, play a critical role in the overarching decision-making process. Notably, the model ingests a dataset characterized by a specific batch size (B) and D-dimensional features as input without applying global feature normalization. Subsequently, the data undergoes batch normalization (BN) before being channeled into a feature transformer. Within the feature transformer, illustrated in Figure 4c of the original paper [20], several gated linear unit (GLU) blocks are employed (a total of n). Each GLU block encompasses three essential layers: fully connected (FC), batch normalization (BN), and GLU. In cases where four GLU blocks are used, two are shared, and two operate independently, contributing to the model’s robustness and parameter-efficient learning. A skip connection is also established between consecutive blocks. Following each block, a 0.5 normalization process ensues, ensuring stability by maintaining variance. Subsequently, the feature transformer processes the batch-normalized features and transfers this information to the attentive transformer of the current step through a split layer. The attentive transformer, visualized in Figure 4d of the original paper [20], comprises four layers: FC, BN, prior scales, and sparsemax. It accepts input from the split layer, applies FC and BN layers, and then employs the prior scales layer to consolidate the magnitudes of features utilized in preceding decision steps. This consolidation is governed by the equation where γ denotes a relaxation parameter. The primary function of the attentive transformer is to compute the mask layer for the current step, utilizing the outcomes from the previous step. The learnable mask (M [i]) is instrumental for sparse selection of the most pertinent features, thereby enhancing parameter efficiency by prioritizing relevant features. The multiplicative masking process involves the attentive transformer to derive masks using processed features from the prior step (a[i 1]). This process is detailed in the equation M [i] = sparsemax(P [i − 1].h_i(a[i 1])) where P [i] is the priori scale and hi some trainable function. These masks contribute to model interpretability, with TabNet offering both local and global explanations. Local interpretability is achieved by utilizing TabNet’s decision masks. TabNet is designed to provide a comprehensive framework for feature selection and efficient learning from tabular data, and its unique encoder architecture, featuring sequential multi-steps and attentive transformers, contributes to its effectiveness in these tasks.

A. Interpretation of Principal Component Analysis

The principal component analysis (PCA) performed in this study aimed to reduce the dimensionality of the dataset in an optimal way [12], allowing for easier visualization and interpretation of the spatial distribution of BMs across the different primary cancer types. Preparing the data using PCA is key to achieving high metrics for the machine learning models. The importance of the first principal component (the axis of the largest spread of the data) in distinguishing the spatial distribution of BMs was demonstrated by its strong correlation with the Y and Z axes (figures 1(a), 1(b)), which represent the front-to-back and top-to-bottom dimensions of the brain, respectively. In contrast, the X axis, representing the side-to-side dimension, showed minimal correlation with PC1 (figure 1(c)) or utility as a distinguishing feature (figure 4) presumably due to the similarities in the left-right symmetriesin the distributions for all of the primary cancer types. By contrast, as shown in figure 4, PC1 was identified as the most important feature of the RF algorithm.

The use of the (PC1, PC2) plane as an optimal reduced dimension plane allowed us to best depict the differences in the spatial distributions of BMs for the five different primary cancer types (Breast, Lung, Melanoma, Renal, and Colon). The (PC1, PC2) plane not only captured the important differences in Cartesian BM locations but also proved to be more efficient than the (Y, Z) coordinate plane which is not surprising due to the fact that the principal coordinate system is the optimal data-based coordinate system that captures the primary directions of spread (standard deviations) in the data.

B. Comparison of Primary Cancer Types

Our analysis revealed distinct differences in the spatial distributions of BMs for Breast vs. Lung and Breast vs. Renal cancer types of cancers [21]. The linear curve fits for each of these cancer types on the (PC1, PC2) plane (figures 3(a), 3(b)) showed differences in both their means and orientations. These findings suggest that the spatial distribution of BMs may be more specific to the primary cancer type. We have similarly demonstrated these types of differences in genetic subtypes of breast cancer [9], but further exploration is required to understand the cellular or genetic mechanisms which may explain these spatial differences as discussed, for example in [11].

In contrast, the spatial distributions of BMs for Lung vs. Melanoma and Lung vs. Renal cancer types were found to be most similar of the ones we compared, as evidenced by the similarity of their means and linear curve fits on the (PC1, PC2) plane (figures 3(c), 3(d)). These similarities suggest that BMs originating from these primary cancer types may share common mechanisms or pathways in their development and progression, although this remains to be fleshed out.

C. Machine Learning Analysis: Distinguishing Primary Cancer Subtypes

The application of machine learning algorithms, namely Random Forest (RF), Support Vector Machine (SVM), and TabNet deep learning, allowed us to assess their ability to accurately distinguish between the subtypes of primary cancers based on the spatial distribution of brain metastases (BMs). The high accuracy achieved by these models in most cases not only suggests the presence of distinct differences in the spatial distribution of BMs across primary cancer types but also indicates that the translation of these distributions onto the first principal component (PC1) further enhances the differentiation capabilities as indicated by its standing as the most important feature in the RF algorithm. This observation implies that utilizing the PC1, which already highlights differences in spatial distribution, can be a robust approach for parsing out these distinctions among primary cancer subtypes and should be an important component in using ML methods on larger data sets.

The downstream effects of developing ML and DL models for BM subtyping could be multifold. For one, while patients with BM often have known primary cancer diagnoses, there are often instances where neurologic symptoms and brain MRI are the first scans which demonstrate tumor burden. A high-fidelity test could at the minimum, key in radiologists and oncologists to look out for a particular subtype. Second, by addressing phenotypic, tumoral behavior characteristics (e.g. where it metastasizes), and exploring molecular traits which have overlap irrespective of primary cancer subtype (i.e. where it came from), we may unlock new options for therapeutic targets that are shared between seemingly disparate cancer subtypes.