74 Development and evaluation of a personalised prognostic prediction model for overall survival in patients with glioblastoma using machine-learning methods

Abstract Introduction Glioblastoma has substantial variation in survival according to treatment, with a recent population-based study reporting median overall survival (OS) ∼7 months, increasing to 16 months among patients receiving multimodal treatment. However, only 29% of patients received multimodality therapy, while 21% received no oncological treatment. Using the Histo-Mol GBM dataset a prognostic modelling framework was developed to predict individualised, time-dependent survival probability curves up to 50 months at clinically relevant timepoints – pre-surgery, post-surgery, and post-oncological treatment. Methods To evaluate prognostic performance across a range of machine-learning approaches, seven survival models representing linear, tree-based, and neural-network techniques were assessed: Cox proportional hazards with elastic net regularisation, Random Survival Forest (RSF), DeepSurv, DeepHitSingle, CoxTime, XGBoost (Cox), XGBoost (AFT). Internal validation was performed using a train(70%)-validation(15%)-test(15%) split and five-fold cross-validation. Model performance was evaluated using Harrell’s and Antolini’s C-index, integrated Brier score (IBS), and multi-level calibration assessment. To reduce overfitting, model-specific regularisation strategies were applied. Model interpretability was explored using SHAP values to quantify individual predictors contributions. Results The final patient numbers included in the pre-surgery, post-surgery, post-oncology subsets were 1,567, 1,506, and 1,456, respectively. RSF demonstrated the best overall performance achieving C-indices and IBS of 0.654 and 0.128 for pre-surgery, 0.687 and 0.118 for post-surgery, and 0.795 and 0.103 for post-oncology. Mean calibration assessment in the post-oncology test set showed close agreement between predicted risk and observed event rates at 12 months (0.591 vs 0.599) and 18 months (0.756 vs 0.748). Post-oncology model SHAP analysis identified chemoradiotherapy, extent of resection, MGMT methylation status, age, and performance status as the most influential predictors. Conclusions The evaluated models demonstrated competitive performance compared with published studies. Further evaluation using independent external datasets is ongoing.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Neuro-Oncology
Published
2026-08-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/noag172.053
Primary Topic
Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

74 Development and evaluation of a personalised prognostic prediction model for overall survival in patients with glioblastoma using machine-learning methods

G Critchley, Stephen Robinson, Histo-Mol GBM Collaborative, Frances Pearl et al.
Neuro-Oncology
Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
article

74 Development and evaluation of a personalised prognostic prediction model for overall survival in patients with glioblastoma using machine-learning methods

G Critchley, Stephen Robinson, Histo-Mol GBM Collaborative, Frances Pearl, Alina Morozova, Elizabeth Ford
article en

Abstract

Abstract Introduction Glioblastoma has substantial variation in survival according to treatment, with a recent population-based study reporting median overall survival (OS) ∼7 months, increasing to 16 months among patients receiving multimodal treatment. However, only 29% of patients received multimodality therapy, while 21% received no oncological treatment. Using the Histo-Mol GBM dataset a prognostic modelling framework was developed to predict individualised, time-dependent survival probability curves up to 50 months at clinically relevant timepoints – pre-surgery, post-surgery, and post-oncological treatment. Methods To evaluate prognostic performance across a range of machine-learning approaches, seven survival models representing linear, tree-based, and neural-network techniques were assessed: Cox proportional hazards with elastic net regularisation, Random Survival Forest (RSF), DeepSurv, DeepHitSingle, CoxTime, XGBoost (Cox), XGBoost (AFT). Internal validation was performed using a train(70%)-validation(15%)-test(15%) split and five-fold cross-validation. Model performance was evaluated using Harrell’s and Antolini’s C-index, integrated Brier score (IBS), and multi-level calibration assessment. To reduce overfitting, model-specific regularisation strategies were applied. Model interpretability was explored using SHAP values to quantify individual predictors contributions. Results The final patient numbers included in the pre-surgery, post-surgery, post-oncology subsets were 1,567, 1,506, and 1,456, respectively. RSF demonstrated the best overall performance achieving C-indices and IBS of 0.654 and 0.128 for pre-surgery, 0.687 and 0.118 for post-surgery, and 0.795 and 0.103 for post-oncology. Mean calibration assessment in the post-oncology test set showed close agreement between predicted risk and observed event rates at 12 months (0.591 vs 0.599) and 18 months (0.756 vs 0.748). Post-oncology model SHAP analysis identified chemoradiotherapy, extent of resection, MGMT methylation status, age, and performance status as the most influential predictors. Conclusions The evaluated models demonstrated competitive performance compared with published studies. Further evaluation using independent external datasets is ongoing.

Neuro-OncologyVol. 28(Supplement_1)
Brighton and Sussex Medical School (GB), Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust (GB), University of Sussex (GB), Royal Marsden Hospital (GB), University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
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.