Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Nov 1;6(11):1723-1730.
doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.4331.

Validation of a Machine Learning Algorithm to Predict 180-Day Mortality for Outpatients With Cancer

Affiliations

Validation of a Machine Learning Algorithm to Predict 180-Day Mortality for Outpatients With Cancer

Christopher R Manz et al. JAMA Oncol. .

Abstract

Importance: Machine learning (ML) algorithms can identify patients with cancer at risk of short-term mortality to inform treatment and advance care planning. However, no ML mortality risk prediction algorithm has been prospectively validated in oncology or compared with routinely used prognostic indices.

Objective: To validate an electronic health record-embedded ML algorithm that generated real-time predictions of 180-day mortality risk in a general oncology cohort.

Design, setting, and participants: This prognostic study comprised a prospective cohort of patients with outpatient oncology encounters between March 1, 2019, and April 30, 2019. An ML algorithm, trained on retrospective data from a subset of practices, predicted 180-day mortality risk between 4 and 8 days before a patient's encounter. Patient encounters took place in 18 medical or gynecologic oncology practices, including 1 tertiary practice and 17 general oncology practices, within a large US academic health care system. Patients aged 18 years or older with outpatient oncology or hematology and oncology encounters were included in the analysis. Patients were excluded if their appointment was scheduled after weekly predictions were generated and if they were only evaluated in benign hematology, palliative care, or rehabilitation practices.

Exposures: Gradient-boosting ML binary classifier.

Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was the patients' 180-day mortality from the index encounter. The primary performance metric was the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).

Results: Among 24 582 patients, 1022 (4.2%) died within 180 days of their index encounter. Their median (interquartile range) age was 64.6 (53.6-73.2) years, 15 319 (62.3%) were women, 18 015 (76.0%) were White, and 10 658 (43.4%) were seen in the tertiary practice. The AUC was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.88-0.90) for the full cohort. The AUC varied across disease-specific groups within the tertiary practice (AUC ranging from 0.74 to 0.96) but was similar between the tertiary and general oncology practices. At a prespecified 40% mortality risk threshold used to differentiate high- vs low-risk patients, observed 180-day mortality was 45.2% (95% CI, 41.3%-49.1%) in the high-risk group vs 3.1% (95% CI, 2.9%-3.3%) in the low-risk group. Integrating the algorithm into the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group and Elixhauser comorbidity index-based classifiers resulted in favorable reclassification (net reclassification index, 0.09 [95% CI, 0.04-0.14] and 0.23 [95% CI, 0.20-0.27], respectively).

Conclusions and relevance: In this prognostic study, an ML algorithm was feasibly integrated into the electronic health record to generate real-time, accurate predictions of short-term mortality for patients with cancer and outperformed routinely used prognostic indices. This algorithm may be used to inform behavioral interventions and prompt earlier conversations about goals of care and end-of-life preferences among patients with cancer.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Bekelman reported receiving grants from Pfizer, UnitedHealth Group, North Carolina Blue Cross Blue Shield, and Embedded Healthcare; personal fees from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Optum, CVS Health, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and UnitedHealthcare outside the submitted work. Dr Patel reported receiving personal fees from Catalyst Health LLC, HealthMine Services, and Holistic Industries outside the submitted work. Dr Parikh reported receiving personal fees from GNS Healthcare and Cancer Study Group, grants and nonfinancial support from Conquer Cancer Foundation, and grants from MUSC Transdisciplinary Collaborative Center in Precision Medicine and Minority Men's Health, VA Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, National Palliative Care Research Center, Embedded Healthcare, and University of Pennsylvania Institute for Translational Medicine and Therapeutics outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Overall 180-Day Mortality of Patients Considered High vs Low Risk as Identified by a Machine Learning Algorithm
High-risk patients defined as having greater than 40% risk of 180-day mortality.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. Algorithm Calibration
Points are binned deciles of predicted mortality. Mean predicted mortality refers to predicted risk of 180-day mortality from the machine learning algorithm. Observed mortality refers to the percentage of patients who died within 180 days of the index encounter. Bars refer to 95% confidence intervals of the prediction. The dotted line refers to a reference model where mean predicted mortality equals observed mortality; a perfectly calibrated algorithm would fall along the dotted line. Points falling below the dotted line overestimate risk of mortality, whereas points falling above the dotted line underestimate risk of mortality.

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Earle CC, Neville BA, Landrum MB, Ayanian JZ, Block SD, Weeks JC. Trends in the aggressiveness of cancer care near the end of life. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(2):315-321. doi:10.1200/JCO.2004.08.136 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chastek B, Harley C, Kallich J, Newcomer L, Paoli CJ, Teitelbaum AH. Health care costs for patients with cancer at the end of life. J Oncol Pract. 2012;8(6):75s-80s. doi:10.1200/JOP.2011.000469 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wright AA, Mack JW, Kritek PA, et al. . Influence of patients’ preferences and treatment site on cancer patients’ end-of-life care. Cancer. 2010;116(19):4656-4663. doi:10.1002/cncr.25217 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Detering KM, Hancock AD, Reade MC, Silvester W. The impact of advance care planning on end of life care in elderly patients: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2010;340:c1345. doi:10.1136/bmj.c1345 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wright AA, Zhang B, Ray A, et al. . Associations between end-of-life discussions, patient mental health, medical care near death, and caregiver bereavement adjustment. JAMA. 2008;300(14):1665-1673. doi:10.1001/jama.300.14.1665 - DOI - PMC - PubMed