On an ensemble algorithm for clustering cancer patient data

Abstract

BackgroundThe TNM staging system is based on three anatomic prognostic factors: Tumor, Lymph Node and Metastasis. However, cancer is no longer considered an anatomic disease. Therefore, the TNM should be expanded to accommodate new prognostic factors in order to increase the accuracy of estimating cancer patient outcome. The ensemble algorithm for clustering cancer data (EACCD) by Chen et al. reflects an effort to expand the TNM without changing its basic definitions. Though results on using EACCD have been reported, there has been no study on the analysis of the algorithm. In this report, we examine various aspects of EACCD using a large breast cancer patient dataset. We compared the output of EACCD with the corresponding survival curves, investigated the effect of different settings in EACCD, and compared EACCD with alternative clustering approaches.ResultsUsing the basic T and N definitions, EACCD generated a dendrogram that shows a graphic relationship among the survival curves of the breast cancer patients. The dendrograms from EACCD are robust for large values of m (the number of runs in the learning step). When m is large, the dendrograms depend on the linkage functions.The statistical tests, however, employed in the learning step have minimal effect on the dendrogram for large m. In addition, if omitting the step for learning dissimilarity in EACCD, the resulting approaches can have a degraded performance. Furthermore, clustering only based on prognostic factors could generate misleading dendrograms, and direct use of partitioning techniques could lead to misleading assignments to clusters.ConclusionsWhen only the Partitioning Around Medoids (PAM) algorithm is involved in the step of learning dissimilarity, large values of m are required to obtain robust dendrograms, and for a large m EACCD can effectively cluster cancer patient data.

A prognostic system for epithelial ovarian carcinomas using machine learning

“…The EACCD is a machine-learning algorithm designed to partition survival data. [21][22][23][24][25][36][37][38][39][40][41][42] It consists of three main steps: (1) defining initial dissimilarities between survival functions of any two combinations; (2) obtaining learned dissimilarities using initial dissimilarities and an en-…”

Histologic Grade Remains a Prognostic Factor for Breast Cancer Regardless of the Number of Positive Lymph Nodes and Tumor Size: A Study of 161 708 Cases of Breast Cancer From the SEER Program

“…Although the grade along with other prognostic factors have not been integrated into the TNM, integration is now possible with algorithms that cluster cancer patient data. 12,13 Figure 3. Delta survival (grades 1 through 3) at each node status for breast cancer Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 1990-2000.…”

Molecular Subtyping of Serous Ovarian Cancer Based on Multi-omics Data

“…For each molecular data type, we classified the SOC samples into subtypes using the following three unsupervised clustering methods: Partitioning Around Medoids (PAM) 16 17 , Hierarchical Clustering (HC) 18 and Non-Negative matrix Factorization (NMF) 19 . To evaluate the performance of different clustering models, we performed Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of the patients were classified into difference clusters, and the significance of the survival analysis was used to evaluate the performance of the subtyping model 20 .…”