Novel head and neck cancer survival analysis approach: Random survival forests versus cox proportional hazards regression

Head and Neck

Volumn 34, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 50-58

  Datema, Frank R ^a   Moya, Ana ^b   Krause, Peter ^c   Bäck, Thomas ^c   Willmes, Lars ^d   Langeveld, Ton ^e   Baatenburg De Jong, Robert J ^a   Blom, Henk M ^f  

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b WAZ Mediengruppe GmbH   (Germany)

^c Divis Intelligent Solutions GmbH   (Germany)

^d Intulion Solutions GmbH   (Germany)

^e LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^f HAGA HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Cox regression; Random survival forests; relative importance; squamous cell carcinoma; survival prediction

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE; ARTICLE; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CANCER LOCALIZATION; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER SURVIVAL; COMORBIDITY; CONTROLLED STUDY; ERROR; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; GENDER; GOLD STANDARD; HEAD AND NECK CANCER; HUMAN; HYPOPHARYNX CARCINOMA; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LARYNX CARCINOMA; LIP CARCINOMA; LOG RANK TEST; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NASOPHARYNX CARCINOMA; OROPHARYNX CARCINOMA; PRIMARY TUMOR; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODEL; RANDOM SURVIVAL FOREST; SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA; STATISTICAL MODEL; VALIDATION PROCESS;

CARCINOMA, SQUAMOUS CELL; FEMALE; HEAD AND NECK NEOPLASMS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM STAGING; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 83555163756     PISSN: 10433074     EISSN: 10970347     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hed.21698     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Datema FR, Ferrier MB, van der Schroeff MP, Baatenburg de Jong RJ,. Impact of comorbidity on short-term mortality and overall survival of head and neck cancer patients. Head Neck 2010; 32: 728-736.
2. Baatenburg de Jong RJ, Hermans J, Molenaar J, Briaire JJ, le Cessie S,. Prediction of survival in patients with head and neck cancer. Head Neck 2001; 23: 718-724. (Pubitemid 32751487)
3. Breiman L,. Random forests. Machine Learning 2001; 45: 5-32. (Pubitemid 32933532)
4. Imran KO, Mevlut T, Füsun T,. The comparisons of random survival forests and Cox regression analysis with simulation and an application related to breast cancer. Expert Syst Appl 2009; 36: 8582-8588.
5. Ishawaran H, Kogalur UB, Blackstone EH, Lauer MS,. Random survival forests. Ann Appl Stat 2008; 2: 841-860.
6. Ishawaran H, Kogalur UB,. Random Survival Forest 3.0.1. R-package 2007 (online available at:).
7. Sinisi SE, van der Laan MJ,. Regression trees for censored data. Biometrics 1988; 44: 35-47.
8. Leblanc M, Crowley J,. Survival trees by goodness of split. J Amer Stat Assoc 1993; 88: 457-467.
9. Hothorn T, Lausen B,. On the exact distribution of maximally selected rank statistics. Comput Stat Data Anal 2003; 43: 121-137. (Pubitemid 36715216)
10. Cox DR, Oakes D,. Analysis of Survival Data. Chapman and Hall; 1988.
11. Harrell FE Jr, Califf RM, Pryor DB, Lee KL, Rosati RA,. Evaluating the yield of medical tests. JAMA 1982; 247: 2543-2546. (Pubitemid 12155954)
12. Piccirillo JF, Costas I,. The impact of comorbidity on outcomes. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2004; 66: 180-185. (Pubitemid 39370454)
13. Feinstein AR,. Clinical biostatistics. XIV. The purposes of prognostic stratification. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1972; 13: 285-297.
14. Feinstein AR,. Clinical biostatistics. XV. The purposes of prognostic stratification. I. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1972; 13: 442-457.
15. Feinstein AR,. Clinical biostatistics. XVI. The process of prognostic stratification. 2. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1972; 13: 609-624.
16. Feinstein AR,. Clinical biostatistics. XVII. Synchronous partition and bivariate evaluation in predictive stratification. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1972; 13: 755-768.