Optimizing GCSF prophylaxis: Artificial intelligence (AI) models to predict chemotherapy-induced FN in patients with cancer.

Authors

null

Jeanine Flanigan

Sandoz Inc (through partnership with University of Pittsburgh School of Pharmacy), Princeton, NJ

Jeanine Flanigan, Saad Aslam, Robert L. Woldman, Yang Zhang, Mary Johnson, Moira Blodgett, Emily Kilgore, Amy J. Anderson, Ramin Arani, Edward C. Li

Organizations

Sandoz Inc (through partnership with University of Pittsburgh School of Pharmacy), Princeton, NJ, Optum, Eden Prairie, MN, Sandoz, Princeton, NJ, Sandoz Inc, Princeton, NJ

Research Funding

Pharmaceutical/Biotech Company
Sandoz

Background: NCCN guidelines recommend primary prophylaxis with granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (GCSF) for select risk classifications; however, the recommendations for a patient at <20% risk of FN are not as explicit. This study builds on previously developed FN risk models and aims to use AI modeling techniques to predict individual risk of neutropenic complications in patients receiving cancer treatment. Methods: An AI-based FN risk modeling study was conducted using retrospective administrative claims of adult commercial and Medicare Advantage patients treated for non-myeloid malignancies from Jan 01 2009 to March 31 2020. Exclusions were myeloid malignancy, pregnancy, clinical trial participation, HIV positive status, hematopoietic cell transplantation, baseline GCSF, surgery or radiation in the first six days of the first chemotherapy cycle. Model features included baseline patient clinical and demographic characteristics, baseline HCRU, chemotherapy treatment patterns, FN risk factors, and use of primary GCSF prophylaxis. The models were developed with an 80/20 train/test split and compared using standard measures of goodness of fit. Various traditional and AI techniques, such as logistic and lasso regressions, TensorFlow Keras, and XGBoost, were trained to predict FN events in this sample. Based on performance, XGBoost was selected for analysis (ROC of 0.86). Results: The sample comprised of (mean age 68 years, 50% female). Among 17,233 patients (20% test set), 2,773 patients (all risk categories) received primary GCSF prophylaxis; 14,460 patients did not receive primary GCSF prophylaxis. The top 20% risk score threshold was deemed optimal to identify high-risk patients. Model outcomes were bifurcated and analyzed based on NCCN guided risk levels; for the high risk chemo regimen, intermediate risk regimen, and remaining patients without primary GCSF prophylaxis, model sensitivity was 74%, 88%, and 56% respectively. Model specifications for the overall top 20% of the test cohort without primary GCSF prophylaxis are described in the table as overall, high risk, intermediate risk, and other risk subsets. Conclusions: While the XGBoost model provided the best fit, the logistic regression model is a strong candidate to identify characteristics associated with higher odds of an FN event. Through identification of these characteristics, the rate of FN in this population can be better addressed and optimize utilization of GCSFs for primary prophylaxis.

CohortNFN eventsPredicted PositiveTrue Positive*True Negative*AccuracySensitivitySpecificity
Top 20% risk score: no primary GCSF prophylaxis14,460168289212211,5220.80530.72620.8062
High risk2,064581220438290.42250.74140.4133
Intermediate risk1,46556882495760.42660.87500.4088
Other10,931547903010,1170.92830.55560.9301

*Not represented: false positive/negative.

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2023 ASCO Quality Care Symposium

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

Poster Session B

Track

Health Care Access, Equity, and Disparities,Technology and Innovation in Quality of Care,Palliative and Supportive Care

Sub Track

Real-World Evidence

Citation

JCO Oncol Pract 19, 2023 (suppl 11; abstr 547)

DOI

10.1200/OP.2023.19.11_suppl.547

Abstract #

547

Poster Bd #

L22

Abstract Disclosures