Download PDF
Semin Thromb Hemost
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1785482
Review Article

Machine Learning as a Diagnostic and Prognostic Tool for Predicting Thrombosis in Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review

Adham H. El-Sherbini   *
1   Department of Biomedical and Molecular Sciences, School of Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
,
Stefania Coroneos   *
1   Department of Biomedical and Molecular Sciences, School of Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
,
Ali Zidan   *
1   Department of Biomedical and Molecular Sciences, School of Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
,
Maha Othman
2   School of Baccalaureate Nursing, St Lawrence College, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
3   Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Khorana score (KS) is an established risk assessment model for predicting cancer-associated thrombosis. However, it ignores several risk factors and has poor predictability in some cancer types. Machine learning (ML) is a novel technique used for the diagnosis and prognosis of several diseases, including cancer-associated thrombosis, when trained on specific diagnostic modalities. Consolidating the literature on the use of ML for the prediction of cancer-associated thrombosis is necessary to understand its diagnostic and prognostic abilities relative to KS. This systematic review aims to evaluate the current use and performance of ML algorithms to predict thrombosis in cancer patients. This study was conducted per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Databases Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov, were searched from inception to September 15, 2023, for studies evaluating the use of ML models for the prediction of thrombosis in cancer patients. Search terms “machine learning,” “artificial intelligence,” “thrombosis,” and “cancer” were used. Studies that examined adult cancer patients using any ML model were included. Two independent reviewers conducted study selection and data extraction. Three hundred citations were screened, of which 29 studies underwent a full-text review, and ultimately, 8 studies with 22,893 patients were included. Sample sizes ranged from 348 to 16,407 patients. Thrombosis was characterized as venous thromboembolism (n = 6) or peripherally inserted central catheter thrombosis (n = 2). The types of cancer included breast, gastric, colorectal, bladder, lung, esophageal, pancreatic, biliary, prostate, ovarian, genitourinary, head–neck, and sarcoma. All studies reported outcomes on the ML's predictive capacity. The extreme gradient boosting appears to be the best-performing model, and several models outperform KS in their respective datasets.

Keywords

thrombosis - cancer - machine learning - artificial intelligence - risk assessment

Data Availability

All data are available upon request to the corresponding author.


* These authors are undergraduate students.




Publication History

Article published online:
11 April 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Hamza MS, Mousa SA. Cancer-associated thrombosis: risk factors, molecular mechanisms, future management. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost 2020; 26: 1076029620954282
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Wendelboe AM, Raskob GE. Global burden of thrombosis: epidemiologic aspects. Circ Res 2016; 118 (09) 1340-1347
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Fernandes CJ, Morinaga LTK, Alves Jr JL. et al. Cancer-associated thrombosis: the when, how and why. Eur Respir Rev 2019; 28 (151) 180119
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Donnellan E, Khorana AA. Cancer and venous thromboembolic disease: a review. Oncologist 2017; 22 (02) 199-207
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Key NS, Khorana AA, Kuderer NM. et al. Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and treatment in patients with cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol 2020; 38 (05) 496-520
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Abdol Razak NB, Jones G, Bhandari M, Berndt MC, Metharom P. Cancer-associated thrombosis: an overview of mechanisms, risk factors, and treatment. Cancers (Basel) 2018; 10 (10) 380
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Navi BB, Reiner AS, Kamel H. et al. Risk of arterial thromboembolism in patients with cancer. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017; 70 (08) 926-938
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Broderick C, Watson L, Armon MP. Thrombolytic strategies versus standard anticoagulation for acute deep vein thrombosis of the lower limb. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 1 (01) CD002783
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Pesavento R, Prandoni P. Prevention and treatment of the post-thrombotic syndrome and of the chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther 2015; 13 (02) 193-207
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Bryce Y, Emmanuel Jr A, Agrusa C. et al. Acute limb ischemia in a cancer patient has high morbidity, high mortality, and atypical presentation: a tertiary cancer center's retrospective study. BMC Cancer 2021; 21 (01) 916
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Overvad TF, Ording AG, Nielsen PB. et al. Validation of the Khorana score for predicting venous thromboembolism in 40 218 patients with cancer initiating chemotherapy. Blood Adv 2022; 6 (10) 2967-2976
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Madakam S, Uchiya T, Mark S, Lurie Y. Artificial intelligence, machine learning and deep learning (literature: review and metrics). Asia Pac J Manag Res Innov 2022; 18 (1–2): 7-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Habehh H, Gohel S. Machine learning in healthcare. Curr Genomics 2021; 22 (04) 291-300
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Nichols JA, Herbert Chan HW, Baker MAB. Machine learning: applications of artificial intelligence to imaging and diagnosis. Biophys Rev 2019; 11 (01) 111-118
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Ferroni P, Roselli M, Zanzotto FM, Guadagni F. Artificial intelligence for cancer-associated thrombosis risk assessment. Lancet Haematol 2018; 5 (09) e391
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Ferroni P, Zanzotto FM, Scarpato N, Riondino S, Guadagni F, Roselli M. Validation of a machine learning approach for venous thromboembolism risk prediction in oncology. Dis Markers 2017; 2017: 8781379
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Fu J, Cai W, Zeng B. et al. Development and validation of a predictive model for peripherally inserted central catheter-related thrombosis in breast cancer patients based on artificial neural network: a prospective cohort study. Int J Nurs Stud 2022; 135: 104341
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Jin S, Qin D, Liang BS. et al. Machine learning predicts cancer-associated deep vein thrombosis using clinically available variables. Int J Med Inform 2022; 161: 104733
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Liu S, Zhang F, Xie L. et al. Machine learning approaches for risk assessment of peripherally inserted central catheter-related vein thrombosis in hospitalized patients with cancer. Int J Med Inform 2019; 129: 175-183
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Meng L, Wei T, Fan R. et al. Development and validation of a machine learning model to predict venous thromboembolism among hospitalized cancer patients. Asia Pac J Oncol Nurs 2022; 9 (12) 100128
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Muñoz AJ, Souto JC, Lecumberri R. et al. Development of a predictive model of venous thromboembolism recurrence in anticoagulated cancer patients using machine learning. Thromb Res 2023; 228: 181-188
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Xu Q, Lei H, Li X. et al. Machine learning predicts cancer-associated venous thromboembolism using clinically available variables in gastric cancer patients. Heliyon 2023; 9 (01) e12681
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Sarker IH. Machine learning: algorithms, real-world applications and research directions. SN Comput Sci 2021; 2 (03) 160
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Sarker IH, Kayes ASM, Badsha S, Alqahtani H, Watters P, Ng A. Cybersecurity data science: an overview from machine learning perspective. J Big Data 2020; 7 (01) 41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Quazi S. Artificial intelligence and machine learning in precision and genomic medicine. Med Oncol 2022; 39 (08) 120
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Bi Q, Goodman KE, Kaminsky J, Lessler J. What is machine learning? A primer for the epidemiologist. Am J Epidemiol 2019; 188 (12) 2222-2239
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Otokiti AU, Ozoude MM, Williams KS. et al. The need to prioritize model-updating processes in clinical artificial intelligence (AI) models: protocol for a scoping review. JMIR Res Protoc 2023; 12: e37685
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Bhinder B, Gilvary C, Madhukar NS, Elemento O. Artificial intelligence in cancer research and precision medicine. Cancer Discov 2021; 11 (04) 900-915
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Ed-Driouch C, Mars F, Gourraud PA, Dumas C. Addressing the challenges and barriers to the integration of machine learning into clinical practice: an innovative method to hybrid human-machine intelligence. Sensors (Basel) 2022; 22 (21) 8313
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar