Transfer Learning and Machine Learning for Training Five-Year Survival Prognostic Models in Early Breast Cancer: Development and Validation Study

BACKGROUND: Prognostic information is essential for decision-making in breast cancer management. In recent years, trials and clinical practice have emphasized genomic prognostication tools, despite clinicopathological methods being more affordable and accessible. PREDICT v3 is one such tool with promising results across cohorts. Advances in machine learning (ML), transfer learning, and ensemble methods provide opportunities to enhance these approaches, especially where missing data and model assumptions differ across diverse populations. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the potential to improve survival prognostication in breast cancer. More precisely, we compare de novo ML, transfer learning from the pretrained prognostication model PREDICT v3, and a stacked ensemble approach. METHODS: Data from the MA.27 trial (NCT00066573) were used for model training, with external validation on data from the Tamoxifen Exemestane Adjuvant Multinational trial (NCT00279448 and NCT00032136) and a US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cohort. Transfer learning was applied by re-estimating the parameters of the pretrained prognostic tool PREDICT v3. De novo ML included random survival forests and extreme gradient boosting, and the ensemble was implemented using weighted linear stacking of model predictions. Internal and external validation was assessed in terms of the integrated calibration index and discrimination. Shapley Additive Explanations values were used to explain model predictions and decision-curve analysis to facilitate the interpretation of performance differences. RESULTS: Transfer learning, de novo random survival forest, and the stacked ensemble improved calibration in MA.27 over the pretrained model (integrated calibration index reduced from 0.042 in PREDICT v3 to ≤0.007) while discrimination remained comparable (AUROC increased from 0.738 in PREDICT v3 to 0.744-0.799). In decision-curve analysis, these approaches demonstrated consistently positive net benefit across clinically relevant thresholds, while PREDICT v3 lost net benefit beyond 7.5% predicted risk. Invalid PREDICT v3 predictions were observed in 23.8% to 25.8% of MA.27 individuals due to missing information. In contrast, ML models and the stacked ensemble predicted survival despite missing data. Across all models, patient age, nodal status, pathological grading, and tumor size had the highest Shapley Additive Explanations values, indicating their importance for survival prognostication. External validation in the US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cohort confirmed the benefits of transfer learning, RSF, and ensemble in terms of calibration while maintaining discrimination at comparable levels. In contrast, generalizability was limited in the Tamoxifen Exemestane Adjuvant Multinational trial, a cohort with a substantially different distribution of clinicopathological characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that transfer learning, de novo RSF, and a stacked ensemble can improve prognostication compared with the pretrained PREDICT v3, particularly in the presence of missing or uncertain inputs. Transportability may be limited in cohorts with different clinicopathological profiles, requiring local validation before clinical deployment. Ultimately, better survival estimation can provide more meaningful guidance in breast cancer care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00066573; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00066573, NCT00279448; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00279448, NCT00032136; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00032136.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2026-04-14
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2196/88665
Primary Topic
AI in cancer detection
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Transfer Learning and Machine Learning for Training Five-Year Survival Prognostic Models in Early Breast Cancer: Development and Validation Study

Lois E. Shepherd, Annette Hasenburg, Cornelis J.�H. van de Velde, Bingshu E. Chen et al.
Journal of Medical Internet Research
AI in cancer detection
article

Transfer Learning and Machine Learning for Training Five-Year Survival Prognostic Models in Early Breast Cancer: Development and Validation Study

Lois E. Shepherd, Annette Hasenburg, Cornelis J.�H. van de Velde, Bingshu E. Chen, Melanie Spears, Gregory R. Pond, Elma Meershoek‐Klein Kranenbarg, Christos Markopoulos, Lisa Vandermeer, Jane Bayani, Lisa Pilgram, M. Clemons, Ana-Alicia Beltran-Bless, Khaled El Emam, Marie-France Savard, Andréanne Leblanc, Lamin Juwara, Elizabeth Mallon, Fida K. Dankar, Luc Dirix, Karen J. Taylor, John M.S. Bartlett, Kai Yang, John Hilton, Sarah Barker
article en

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Prognostic information is essential for decision-making in breast cancer management. In recent years, trials and clinical practice have emphasized genomic prognostication tools, despite clinicopathological methods being more affordable and accessible. PREDICT v3 is one such tool with promising results across cohorts. Advances in machine learning (ML), transfer learning, and ensemble methods provide opportunities to enhance these approaches, especially where missing data and model assumptions differ across diverse populations. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the potential to improve survival prognostication in breast cancer. More precisely, we compare de novo ML, transfer learning from the pretrained prognostication model PREDICT v3, and a stacked ensemble approach. METHODS: Data from the MA.27 trial (NCT00066573) were used for model training, with external validation on data from the Tamoxifen Exemestane Adjuvant Multinational trial (NCT00279448 and NCT00032136) and a US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cohort. Transfer learning was applied by re-estimating the parameters of the pretrained prognostic tool PREDICT v3. De novo ML included random survival forests and extreme gradient boosting, and the ensemble was implemented using weighted linear stacking of model predictions. Internal and external validation was assessed in terms of the integrated calibration index and discrimination. Shapley Additive Explanations values were used to explain model predictions and decision-curve analysis to facilitate the interpretation of performance differences. RESULTS: Transfer learning, de novo random survival forest, and the stacked ensemble improved calibration in MA.27 over the pretrained model (integrated calibration index reduced from 0.042 in PREDICT v3 to ≤0.007) while discrimination remained comparable (AUROC increased from 0.738 in PREDICT v3 to 0.744-0.799). In decision-curve analysis, these approaches demonstrated consistently positive net benefit across clinically relevant thresholds, while PREDICT v3 lost net benefit beyond 7.5% predicted risk. Invalid PREDICT v3 predictions were observed in 23.8% to 25.8% of MA.27 individuals due to missing information. In contrast, ML models and the stacked ensemble predicted survival despite missing data. Across all models, patient age, nodal status, pathological grading, and tumor size had the highest Shapley Additive Explanations values, indicating their importance for survival prognostication. External validation in the US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cohort confirmed the benefits of transfer learning, RSF, and ensemble in terms of calibration while maintaining discrimination at comparable levels. In contrast, generalizability was limited in the Tamoxifen Exemestane Adjuvant Multinational trial, a cohort with a substantially different distribution of clinicopathological characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that transfer learning, de novo RSF, and a stacked ensemble can improve prognostication compared with the pretrained PREDICT v3, particularly in the presence of missing or uncertain inputs. Transportability may be limited in cohorts with different clinicopathological profiles, requiring local validation before clinical deployment. Ultimately, better survival estimation can provide more meaningful guidance in breast cancer care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00066573; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00066573, NCT00279448; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00279448, NCT00032136; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00032136.

Journal of Medical Internet ResearchVol. 28
Ontario Institute for Cancer Research (CA), University of Ottawa (CA), Canadian Cancer Society (CA), Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE), National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (GR), Queen's University (CA), Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CA), Leiden University Medical Center (NL), NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (GB), Ottawa Hospital (CA), Edinburgh Cancer Research (GB), University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE), Public Health Ontario (CA), Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CA), Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (CA), Université de Montréal (CA), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin (DE), McMaster University (CA)
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Government of Ontario, Cancer Research UK, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Canada Research Chairs, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 23%
AI in cancer detection
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.