DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of the Performance of Log-logistic Regression and Artificial Neural Networks for Predicting Breast Cancer Relapse

  • Faradmal, Javad (Modeling of Noncommunicable Diseases Research Center, Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Soltanian, Ali Reza (Modeling of Noncommunicable Diseases Research Center, Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Roshanaei, Ghodratollah (Modeling of Noncommunicable Diseases Research Center, Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Khodabakhshi, Reza (Department of Radiation Oncology, Fayyazbakhsh Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Kasaeian, Amir (Non-Communicable Diseases Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Population Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences)
  • Published : 2014.07.30

Abstract

Background: Breast cancer is the most common cancers in female populations. The exact cause is not known, but is most likely to be a combination of genetic and environmental factors. Log-logistic model (LLM) is applied as a statistical method for predicting survival and it influencing factors. In recent decades, artificial neural network (ANN) models have been increasingly applied to predict survival data. The present research was conducted to compare log-logistic regression and artificial neural network models in prediction of breast cancer (BC) survival. Materials and Methods: A historical cohort study was established with 104 patients suffering from BC from 1997 to 2005. To compare the ANN and LLM in our setting, we used the estimated areas under the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) and integrated AUC (iAUC). The data were analyzed using R statistical software. Results: The AUC for the first, second and third years after diagnosis are 0.918, 0.780 and 0.800 in ANN, and 0.834, 0.733 and 0.616 in LLM, respectively. The mean AUC for ANN was statistically higher than that of the LLM (0.845 vs. 0.744). Hence, this study showed a significant difference between the performance in terms of prediction by ANN and LLM. Conclusions: This study demonstrated that the ability of prediction with ANN was higher than with the LLM model. Thus, the use of ANN method for prediction of survival in field of breast cancer is suggested.

Keywords

References

  1. AJCC (2002). American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual. sixth ed. New York: Springer.
  2. Chi CL, Street WN, Wolberg WH (2007). Application of artificial neural network-based survival analysis on two breast cancer datasets. AMIA Annu Symp Proc, 130-4.
  3. Chi CL, Street WN, Wolberg WH (2007). Application of artificial neural network-based survival analysis on two breast cancer datasets. AMIA Annual Symposium proceedings/AMIA Symposium AMIA Symposium, 130-4.
  4. Dolgobrodov SG, Moore P, Marshall R, et al (2007). Artificial neural network: predicted vs observed survival in patients with colonic cancer. Dis Colon Rectum, 50, 184-91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-006-0779-8
  5. Dheeba J, Selvi ST (2011). A swarm optimized neural network system for classification of microcalcification in mammograms. J Med Syst, 36, 3051-61.
  6. Eleuteri A, Aung MS, Taktak AF, Damato B, Lisboa PJ (2007). Continuous and discrete time survival analysis: neural network approaches. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc, 2007, 5420-3.
  7. Faradmal J, Kazemnejad A, Khodabakhshi R, Gohari MR, Hajizadeh E (2010). Comparison of three adjuvant chemotherapy regimes using an extended log-logistic model in women with operable breast cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 11, 353-8.
  8. Giordano A, Giuliano M, De Laurentiis M, et al (2011). Artificial neural network analysis of circulating tumor cells in metastatic breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 129, 451-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-011-1645-5
  9. Gohari MR, Biglarian A, Bakhshi E, Pourhoseingholi MA (2011). Use of an artificial neural network to determine prognostic factors in colorectal cancer patients. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 12, 1469-72.
  10. Hashemian AH, Beiranvand B, Rezaei M, Bardideh A, Zand- Karimi E (2013). Comparison of artificial neural networks and cox regression models in prediction of kidney transplant survival. Int J Adv Biol Biom Res, 1, 1204-12.
  11. Haibe-Kains B, Desmedt C, Sotiriou C, Bontempi G (2008). A comparative study of survival models for breast cancer prognostication on microarray data: does a single gene beat them all? Bioinformatics, 24, 2200-8. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btn374
  12. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, et al (2011). Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin, 61, 69-90. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.20107
  13. Jerez JM, Franco L, Alba E, et al (2005). Improvement of breast cancer relapse prediction in high risk intervals using artificial neural networks. Breast Cancer Res Tr, 94, 65-72.
  14. Jang KH, Yoo TK, Choi JY, et al (2011). Comparison of survival predictions for rats with hemorrhagic shocks using an artificial neural network and support vector machine. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc, 2011, 91-4.
  15. Kleinbaum DG, Klein M (2005). Survival analysis: A self learning text. Second ed. New York: Springer.
  16. Kim SM, Han H, Park JM, et al (2012). A comparison of logistic regression analysis and an artificial neural network using the BI-RADS lexicon for ultrasonography in conjunction with introbserver variability. J Digit Imaging, 25, 599-606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-012-9457-7
  17. Kurt I, Ture M, Kurum AT (2008). Comparing performances of logistic regression, classification and regression tree, and neural networks for predicting coronary artery disease. Expert Systems with Applications, 34, 366-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2006.09.004
  18. Kazemnejad A, Batvandi Z, Faradmal J (2010). Comparison of artificial neural network and binary logistic regression for determination of impaired glucose tolerance/diabetes. Eastern Mediterranean Health J, 16, 15-20.
  19. Lancashire LJ, Rees RC, Ball GR (2008). Identification of gene transcript signatures predictive for estrogen receptor and lymph node status using a stepwise forward selection artificial neural network modelling approach. Artif Intell Med, 43, 99-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artmed.2008.03.001
  20. Naghibi S, Teshnehlab M, Shoorehdeli MA (2011). Breast cancer classification based on advanced multi dimensional fuzzy neural network. J Med Syst, 36, 2713-20.
  21. National Cancer Institute (2012). Cancer terms. URL: http:// training.seer.cancer.gov/disease/cancer/terms.html.
  22. Parsaeian M, Mohammad K, Mahmoudi M, Zeraati H (2012). Comparison of logistic regression and artificial neural network in low back pain prediction: second national health survey. Iranian J Publ Health, 41, 86-92.
  23. Royston P (2001). The lognormal distribution as a model for survival time in cancer, with an emphasis on prognostic factors. Stat Neerlandica, 55, 89-104. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9574.00158
  24. Ripley RM, Harris AL, Tarassenko L (2004). Non-linear survival analysis using neural networks. Stat Med, 23, 25-42.
  25. Rughani AI, Dumont TM, Lu Z, et al (2010). Use of an artificial neural network to predict head injury outcome. J Neurosurg, 113, 585-90. https://doi.org/10.3171/2009.11.JNS09857
  26. R Development Core Team (2011). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria.
  27. Biglarian A, Bakhshi E, Gohari MR, Khodabakhshi R (2012). Artificial neural network for prediction of distant metastasis in colorectal cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 13, 927-30. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2012.13.3.927
  28. Shi H-Y, Lee K-T, Lee H-H, et al. (2012) Comparison of artificial neural network and logistic regression models for predicting in-hospital mortality after primary liver cancer surgery. PLoS ONE, 7, 35781. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0035781
  29. Tangri N, Ansell D, Naimark D (2011). Determining factors that predict technique survival on peritoneal dialysis: application of regression and artificial neural network methods. Nephron Clin Pract, 118, 93-100. https://doi.org/10.1159/000319988
  30. Uno H, Cai T, Tian L, Wei LJ (2007). Evaluating prediction rules for t-year survivors with censored regression models. J Am Stat Assoc, 102, 527-32. https://doi.org/10.1198/016214507000000149
  31. WHO (2012). Who cancer. URL: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs297/en/.
  32. Xiang A, Lapuerta P, Ryutov A, Buckley J, Azen S (2000). Comparison of the performance of neural network methods and cox regression for censored survival data. Comput Stat Data An, 34, 243-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9473(99)00098-5
  33. Zhu L, Luo W, Su M, et al (2013). Comparison between artificial neural network and cox regression model in predicting the survival rate of gastric cancer patients. Biomedical Reports, 1, 757-60.

Cited by

  1. Can multiple SNP testing in BRCA2 and BRCA1 female carriers be used to improve risk prediction models in conjunction with clinical assessment? vol.14, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-14-87
  2. Application of Machine Learning Techniques to High-Dimensional Clinical Data to Forecast Postoperative Complications vol.11, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155705
  3. Survival Prediction and Feature Selection in Patients with Breast Cancer Using Support Vector Regression vol.2016, pp.1748-6718, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/2157984
  4. Prediction of excess weight loss after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: data from an artificial neural network vol.30, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4225-7