IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0311261.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A machine learning approach in a monocentric cohort for predicting primary refractory disease in Diffuse Large B-cell lymphoma patients

Author

Listed:
  • Marie Y Detrait
  • Stéphanie Warnon
  • Raphaël Lagasse
  • Laurent Dumont
  • Stéphanie De Prophétis
  • Amandine Hansenne
  • Juliette Raedemaeker
  • Valérie Robin
  • Géraldine Verstraete
  • Aline Gillain
  • Nicolas Depasse
  • Pierre Jacmin
  • Delphine Pranger

Abstract

Introduction: Primary refractory disease affects 30–40% of patients diagnosed with DLBCL and is a significant challenge in disease management due to its poor prognosis. Predicting refractory status could greatly inform treatment strategies, enabling early intervention. Various options are now available based on patient and disease characteristics. Supervised machine-learning techniques, which can predict outcomes in a medical context, appear highly suitable for this purpose. Design: Retrospective monocentric cohort study. Patient population: Adult patients with a first diagnosis of DLBCL admitted to the hematology unit from 2017 to 2022. Aim: We evaluated in our Center five supervised machine-learning (ML) models as a tool for the prediction of primary refractory DLBCL. Main results: One hundred and thirty patients with Diffuse Large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) were included in this study between January 2017 and December 2022. The variables used for analysis included demographic characteristics, clinical condition, disease characteristics, first-line therapy and PET-CT scan realization after 2 cycles of treatment. We compared five supervised ML models: support vector machine (SVM), Random Forest Classifier (RFC), Logistic Regression (LR), Naïve Bayes (NB) Categorical classifier and eXtreme Gradient Boost (XGboost), to predict primary refractory disease. The performance of these models was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC-AUC), accuracy, false positive rate, sensitivity, and F1-score to identify the best model. After a median follow-up of 19.5 months, the overall survival rate was 60% in the cohort. The Overall Survival at 3 years was 58.5% (95%CI, 51–68.5) and the 3-years Progression Free Survival was 63% (95%CI, 54–71) using Kaplan-Meier method. Of the 124 patients who received a first line treatment, primary refractory disease occurred in 42 patients (33.8%) and 2 patients (1.6%) experienced relapse within 6 months. The univariate analysis on refractory disease status shows age (p = 0.009), Ann Arbor stage (p = 0.013), CMV infection (p = 0.012), comorbidity (p = 0.019), IPI score (p

Suggested Citation

  • Marie Y Detrait & Stéphanie Warnon & Raphaël Lagasse & Laurent Dumont & Stéphanie De Prophétis & Amandine Hansenne & Juliette Raedemaeker & Valérie Robin & Géraldine Verstraete & Aline Gillain & Nicol, 2024. "A machine learning approach in a monocentric cohort for predicting primary refractory disease in Diffuse Large B-cell lymphoma patients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(10), pages 1-19, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0311261
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0311261
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0311261
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0311261&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0311261?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Scott B Hu & Deborah J L Wong & Aditi Correa & Ning Li & Jane C Deng, 2016. "Prediction of Clinical Deterioration in Hospitalized Adult Patients with Hematologic Malignancies Using a Neural Network Model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-12, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0311261. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.