4.7 Article

Survival prediction and treatment optimization of multiple myeloma patients using machine-learning models based on clinical and gene expression data

期刊

LEUKEMIA
卷 35, 期 10, 页码 2924-2935

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41375-021-01286-2

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study developed a predictive model for multiple myeloma survival based on the integration of clinical, biochemical, and gene expression data using machine learning algorithms. The model demonstrated high predictive accuracy, especially for patients with high-risk cytogenetics.
Multiple myeloma (MM) remains mostly an incurable disease with a heterogeneous clinical evolution. Despite the availability of several prognostic scores, substantial room for improvement still exists. Promising results have been obtained by integrating clinical and biochemical data with gene expression profiling (GEP). In this report, we applied machine learning algorithms to MM clinical and RNAseq data collected by the CoMMpass consortium. We created a 50-variable random forests model (IAC-50) that could predict overall survival with high concordance between both training and validation sets (c-indexes, 0.818 and 0.780). This model included the following covariates: patient age, ISS stage, serum B2-microglobulin, first-line treatment, and the expression of 46 genes. Survival predictions for each patient considering the first line of treatment evidenced that those individuals treated with the best-predicted drug combination were significantly less likely to die than patients treated with other schemes. This was particularly important among patients treated with a triplet combination including bortezomib, an immunomodulatory drug (ImiD), and dexamethasone. Finally, the model showed a trend to retain its predictive value in patients with high-risk cytogenetics. In conclusion, we report a predictive model for MM survival based on the integration of clinical, biochemical, and gene expression data with machine learning tools.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据