Secret History: Return of the Black Death Channel 4, 7-8pm In 1348 the Black Death swept through London, killing people within days of the appearance of their first symptoms. Exactly how many died, and why, has long been a mystery. This Secret History documentary follows experts as they pick through the evidence and reveal why the plague killed on such a scale. And they ask, what might be coming next?

Medscape

Statistical methods in cancer research

Despite years of research and hundreds of reports on tumor markers in oncology, the number of markers that have emerged as clinically useful is pitifully small. Often, initially reported studies of a marker show great promise, but subsequent studies on the same or related markers yield inconsistent conclusions or stand in direct contradiction to the promising results. It is imperative that we attempt to understand the reasons that multiple studies of the same marker lead to differing conclusions. A variety of methodologic problems have been cited to explain these discrepancies. Unfortunately, many tumor marker studies have not been reported in a rigorous fashion, and published articles often lack sufficient information to allow adequate assessment of the quality of the study or the generalizability of study results. The development of guidelines for the reporting of tumor marker studies was a major recommendation of the National Cancer Institute-European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (NCI-EORTC) First International Meeting on Cancer Diagnostics in 2000. As for the successful CONSORT initiative for randomized trials and for the STARD statement for diagnostic studies, we suggest guidelines to provide relevant information about the study design, preplanned hypotheses, patient and specimen characteristics, assay methods, and statistical analysis methods. In addition, the guidelines suggest helpful presentations of data and important elements to include in discussions. The goal of these guidelines is to encourage transparent and complete reporting so that the relevant information will be available to others to help them to judge the usefulness of the data and understand the context in which the conclusions apply.

Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK)

Despite years of research and hundreds of reports on tumor markers in oncology, the number of markers that have emerged as clinically useful is pitifully small. Often, initially reported studies of a marker show great promise, but subsequent studies on the same or related markers yield inconsistent conclusions or stand in direct contradiction to the promising results. It is imperative that we attempt to understand the reasons that multiple studies of the same marker lead to differing conclusions. A variety of methodologic problems have been cited to explain these discrepancies. Unfortunately, many tumor marker studies have not been reported in a rigorous fashion, and published articles often lack sufficient information to allow adequate assessment of the quality of the study or the generalizability of study results. The development of guidelines for the reporting of tumor marker studies was a major recommendation of the National Cancer Institute - European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (NCI - EORTC) First International Meeting on Cancer Diagnostics in 2000. As for the successful CONSORT initiative for randomized trials and for the STARD statement for diagnostic studies, we suggest guidelines to provide relevant information about the study design, preplanned hypotheses, patient and specimen characteristics, assay methods, and statistical analysis methods. In addition, the guidelines suggest helpful presentations of data and important elements to include in discussions. The goal of these guidelines is to encourage transparent and complete reporting so that the relevant information will be available to others to help them to judge the usefulness of the data and understand the context in which the conclusions apply.

Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (remark).

Classification is one of the most active research and application areas of neural networks. The literature is vast and growing. This paper summarizes some of the most important developments in neural network classification research. Specifically, the issues of posterior probability estimation, the link between neural and conventional classifiers, learning and generalization tradeoff in classification, the feature variable selection, as well as the effect of misclassification costs are examined. Our purpose is to provide a synthesis of the published research in this area and stimulate further research interests and efforts in the identified topics.

/pdf/neural-networks-for-classification-a-survey-573tgz3hdm.pdf

Neural networks for classification: a survey

Prostate cancer has the highest prevalence of any nonskin cancer in the human body, with similar likelihood of neoplastic foci found within the prostates of men around the world regardless of diet, occupation, lifestyle, or other factors. Essentially all men with circulating androgens will develop microscopic prostate cancer if they live long enough. This review is a contemporary and comprehensive, literature-based analysis of the putative risk factors for human prostate cancer, and the results were presented at a multidisciplinary consensus conference held in Crystal City, Virginia, in the fall of 2002. The objectives were to evaluate known environmental factors and mechanisms of prostatic carcinogenesis and to identify existing data gaps and future research needs. The review is divided into four sections, including 1) epidemiology (endogenous factors [family history, hormones, race, aging and oxidative stress] and exogenous factors [diet, environmental agents, occupation and other factors, including lifestyle factors]); 2) animal and cell culture models for prediction of human risk (rodent models, transgenic models, mouse reconstitution models, severe combined immunodeficiency syndrome mouse models, canine models, xenograft models, and cell culture models); 3) biomarkers in prostate cancer, most of which have been tested only as predictive factors for patient outcome after treatment rather than as risk factors; and 4) genotoxic and nongenotoxic mechanisms of carcinogenesis. The authors conclude that most of the data regarding risk relies, of necessity, on epidemiologic studies, but animal and cell culture models offer promise in confirming some important findings. The current understanding of biomarkers of disease and risk factors is limited. An understanding of the risk factors for prostate cancer has practical importance for public health research and policy, genetic and nutritional education and chemoprevention, and prevention strategies.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/cncr.20408

Human prostate cancer risk factors.

BACKGROUND

The TNM staging system originated as a response to the need for an accurate, consistent, universal cancer outcome prediction system. Since the TNM staging system was introduced in the 1950s, new prognostic factors have been identified and new methods for integrating prognostic factors have been developed. This study compares the prediction accuracy of the TNM staging system with that of artificial neural network statistical models.



METHODS

For 5-year survival of patients with breast or colorectal carcinoma, the authors compared the TNM staging system's predictive accuracy with that of artificial neural networks (ANN). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, as applied to an independent validation data set, was the measure of accuracy.



RESULTS

For the American College of Surgeons' Patient Care Evaluation (PCE) data set, using only the TNM variables (tumor size, number of positive regional lymph nodes, and distant metastasis), the artificial neural network's predictions of the 5-year survival of patients with breast carcinoma were significantly more accurate than those of the TNM staging system (TNM, 0.720; ANN, 0.770; P < 0.001). For the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results breast carcinoma data set, using only the TNM variables, the artificial neural network's predictions of 10-year survival were significantly more accurate than those of the TNM staging system (TNM, 0.692; ANN, 0.730; P < 0.01). For the PCE colorectal data set, using only the TNM variables, the artificial neural network's predictions of the 5-year survival of patients with colorectal carcinoma were significantly more accurate than those of the TNM staging system (TNM, 0.737; ANN, 0.815; P < 0.001). Adding commonly collected demographic and anatomic variables to the TNM variables further increased the accuracy of the artificial neural network's predictions of breast carcinoma survival (0.784) and colorectal carcinoma survival (0.869).



CONCLUSIONS

Artificial neural networks are significantly more accurate than the TNM staging system when both use the TNM prognostic factors alone. New prognostic factors can be added to artificial neural networks to increase prognostic accuracy further. These results are robust across different data sets and cancer sites. Cancer 1997; 79:857-62. © 1997 American Cancer Society.

https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/%28SICI%291097-0142%2819970215%2979%3A4%3C857%3A%3AAID-CNCR24%3E3.0.CO%3B2-Y

Artificial neural networks improve the accuracy of cancer survival prediction

In this study, we evaluated the accuracy of a neural network in predicting 5-, 10- and 15-year breast-cancer-specific survival. A series of 951 breast cancer patients was divided into a training set of 651 and a validation set of 300 patients. Eight variables were entered as input to the network: tumor size, axillary nodal status, histological type, mitotic count, nuclear pleomorphism, tubule formation, tumor necrosis and age. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was used as a measure of accuracy of the prediction models in generating survival estimates for the patients in the independent validation set. The AUC values of the neural network models for 5-, 10- and 15-year breast-cancer-specific survival were 0.909, 0.886 and 0.883, respectively.The corresponding AUC values for logistic regression were 0.897, 0.862 and 0.858. Axillary lymph node status (N0 vs. N+) predicted 5-year survival with a specificity of 71% and a sensitivity of 77%. The sensitivity of the neural network model was 91% at this specificity level. The rate of false predictions at 5 years was 82/300 for nodal status and 40/300 for the neural network. When nodal status was excluded from the neural network model, the rate of false predictions increased only to 49/300 (AUC 0.877). An artificial neural network is very accurate in the 5-, 10- and 15-year breast-cancer-specific survival prediction. The consistently high accuracy over time and the good predictive performance of a network trained without information on nodal status demonstrate that neural networks can be important tools for cancer survival prediction.

Artificial neural networks applied to survival prediction in breast cancer.

The American Joint Committee on Cancer proposes the following criteria for evaluating putative prognostic factors: they must be (1) significant, (2) independent, and (3) clinically important. Furthermore, we suggest the criteria for selecting a prognostic system that includes TNM and new prognostic factors. These criteria are: (1) easy for physicians to use; (2) provides predictions for all types of cancer; (3) provides the most accurate relapse and survival predictions at diagnosis and for every year lived for each patient; (4) provides group survival curves, where the grouping can be by any variable including outcome and therapy; (5) accommodates missing data and censored patients and is tolerant of noisy and biased data; (6) makes no a priori assumptions regarding the type of data, the distribution of the variables, or the relationships among the variables; (7) can test putative prognostic factors for significance, independence, and clinical importance; (8) accommodates treatment information in the evaluation of prognostic factors; (9) accommodates new putative prognostic factors without changing the model; (10) accommodates emerging diagnostic techniques; (11) provides information regarding the importance of each predictive variable; and (12) is automatic.

https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/1097-0142%2819931115%2972%3A10%3C3131%3A%3AAID-CNCR2820721039%3E3.0.CO%3B2-J

Harry B. Burke

Papers

Human prostate cancer risk factors.

Artificial neural networks improve the accuracy of cancer survival prediction

Artificial neural networks applied to survival prediction in breast cancer.

Criteria for prognostic factors and for an enhanced prognostic system

Outcome prediction and the future of the TNM staging system.