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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00066573; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00066573, NCT00279448; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00279448, NCT00032136; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00032136.