Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

An artificial neural network improves prediction of observed survival in patients with laryngeal squamous carcinoma

  • Head and Neck Oncology
  • Published:
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology and Head & Neck Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The accepted method of modelling and predicting failure/survival, Cox’s proportional hazards model, is theoretically inferior to neural network derived models for analysing highly complex systems with large datasets. A blinded comparison of the neural network versus the Cox’s model in predicting survival utilising data from 873 treated patients with laryngeal cancer. These were divided randomly and equally into a training set and a study set and Cox’s and neural network models applied in turn. Data were then divided into seven sets of binary covariates and the analysis repeated. Overall survival was not significantly different on Kaplan–Meier plot, or with either test model. Although the network produced qualitatively similar results to Cox’s model it was significantly more sensitive to differences in survival curves for age and N stage. We propose that neural networks are capable of prediction in systems involving complex interactions between variables and non-linearity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Altman DG (1999) Practical statistics for medical research. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 387–395

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hair JF Jr, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC (1988) Multivariate data analysis, 5th edn. Pearson Education, New Jersey, pp 684–692

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cox DR (1999) Regression models and life tables. J R Stat Soc B 34:187–220

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kates R, Schmitt M, Harbeck N (2003) Advanced statistical methods for the definition of new staging models. Recent Results Cancer Res 162:101–113

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Drago GP, Setti E, Licitra L, Liberati D (2002) Forecasting the performance status of head and neck cancer patient treatment by an interval arithmetic pruned perceptro. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 49:782–787

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Grumett S, Snow P, Kerr D (2003) Neural networks in the prediction of survival in patients with colorectal cancer. Clin Colorectal Cancer 2:239–234

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lundin M, Lundin J, Burke HB, Toikkanen S, Pylkkanen L, Joensuu H (1999) Artificial neural networks applied to survival prediction in breast cancer. Oncology 57:281–286

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Snow PB, Kerr DJ, Brandt JM, Rodvold DM (2001) Neural network and regression predictions of 5 year survival after colon carcinoma treatment. Cancer 91(8 Suppl):1673–1678

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Marchevsky AM, Patel S, Wiley KJ, Stephenson MA, Gondo M, Brov RW et al (1998) Artificial neural networks and logistic regression as tools for prediction of survival in patients with Stages I and II non-smoker cell lung cancer. Mod Pathol 11:618–625

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Schwarzer G, Schumacher M (2002) Artificial neural networks for diagnosis and prognosis in prostate cancer. Semin Urol Oncol 20:89–95

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. De Laurentiis M, De Placido S, Bianco AR, Clark GM, Ravdin PM (1999) A prognostic model that makes quantitative estimates of probability of relapse for breast cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res 5:4133–4139

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Burke HB, Goodman PH, Rosen DB, Henson DE, Weinstein JN, Har FE Jr et al (1997) Artificial neural networks improve the accuracy of cancer survival prediction. Cancer 79:857–862

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Bottaci L, Drew PJ, Hartley JE, Hadfield MB, Farouk R, Lee PW et al (1997) Artificial neural networks applied to outcome prediction for colorectal cancer patients in separate institutions. Lancet 350:469–472

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Ochi T, Murase K, Fujii, Kawamura M, Ikezoe J (2002) Survival prediction using artificial neural networks in patients with uterine cervical cancer treated by radiation therapy alone. Int J Clin Oncol 7:294–300

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Jerez-Aragones JM, Gomez-Ruiz JA, Ramos-Jimenez G, Munoz-Per Alba-Conejo E (2003) A combined neural network and decision trees model for prognosis of breast cancer relapse. Artif Intell Med 27:45–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Schwarzer G, Vach W, Schumacher M (2000) On the misuses of artificial neural networks for prognostic and diagnostic classification in oncology. Stat Med 19:541–561

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Sobin LH, Wittekind CH (1997) TNM classification of malignant tumours, 5th edn. Wiley, New York, pp 17–50

    Google Scholar 

  18. Beahrs OH, Henson DE, Hutter RVP, Myers MH (1988) Manual for staging of cancer, 3rd edn. JB Lippincott Co, Philadelphia, pp 9

    Google Scholar 

  19. SAS Institute Inc (1985) User’s guide: statistics, version 5th edn. SAS Institute Inc, Cary

  20. Demuth H, Beale M (2001) Neural networks toolbox: user’s guide version 4. The MathWorks Inc., Natick

  21. Biganzoli E, Boracchi P, Mariani L, Marubini E (1998) Feed forward neural networks for the analysis of censored survival data: a partial logistic regression approach. Stat Med 17:1169–1186

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Lisboa PJ, Wong H, Harris P, Swindell R (2003) A Bayesian neural network approach for modelling censored data with an application to progress after surgery for breast cancer. Artif Intell Med 28:1–25

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. http://www.sas.com/ts (2005) SAS Institute Inc., Carey

  24. Armitage P, Berry G (1987) Statistical methods in medical research, 2nd edn. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 421–439

    Google Scholar 

  25. Reisman Y (1996) Computer-based clinical decision aids. A review of methods and assessment of systems. Med Inform 21:179–197

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Anand SS, Smith AE, Hamilton PW, Anand JS, Hughes JG, Bartels PH (1999) An evaluation of intelligent prognostic systems for colorectal cancer. Artif Intell Med 15:193–214

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Bryce TJ, Dewhirst MW, Floyd Ce Jr, Hars V, Brizel DM (1998) Artificial neural network model of survival in patients treated with irradiation with and without concurrent chemotherapy advanced carcinoma of the head and neck. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 41:339–345

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Liestol K, Andersen PK, Andersen U (1994) Survival analysis and neural nets. Stat Med 13:1189–1200

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Biganzoli E, Boracchi P, Diadone MG, Gion M, Marubini E (1998) Flexible modelling in survival analysis. Structuring biological complexity from the information provided by tumour markers. Int J Biol Markers 13:107–123

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. De Laurentiis M, Ravdin PM (1994) Survival analysis of censored data: neural network analysis detection of complex interactions between variables. Breast Cancer Res Treat 32:113–118

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Head and Neck Oncology Group, Faculty of Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

    Andrew S. Jones, Azzam G. F. Taktak, Timothy R. Helliwell, John E. Fenton, Martin A. Birchall, David J. Husband & Anthony C. Fisher

  2. Section of Head and Neck Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Clinical Sciences Centre, University Hospital Aintree, University of Liverpool, Longmoor Lane, Liverpool, L9 7AL, UK

    Andrew S. Jones

Authors
  1. Andrew S. Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Azzam G. F. Taktak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Timothy R. Helliwell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John E. Fenton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Martin A. Birchall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. David J. Husband
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Anthony C. Fisher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew S. Jones.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jones, A.S., Taktak, A.G.F., Helliwell, T.R. et al. An artificial neural network improves prediction of observed survival in patients with laryngeal squamous carcinoma. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 263, 541–547 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-006-0021-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-006-0021-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation