Result: Comparison of machine learning methods versus traditional Cox regression for survival prediction in cancer using real-world data: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

Background: Accurate prediction of survival in oncology can guide targeted interventions. The traditional regression-based Cox proportional hazards (CPH) model has statistical assumptions and may have limited predictive accuracy. With the capability to model large datasets, machine learning (ML) holds the potential to improve the prediction of time-to-event outcomes, such as cancer survival outcomes. The present study aimed to systematically summarize the use of ML models for cancer survival outcomes in observational studies and to compare the performance of ML models with CPH models. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, MEDLINE (via EBSCO), and Embase for studies that evaluated ML models vs. CPH models for cancer survival outcomes. The use of ML algorithms was summarized, and either the area under the curve (AUC) or the concordance index (C-index) for the ML and CPH models were presented descriptively. Only studies that provided a measure of discrimination, i.e., AUC or C-index, and 95% confidence interval (CI) were included in the final meta-analysis. A random-effects model was used to compare the predictive performance in the pooled AUC or C-index estimates between ML and CPH models using R. The quality of the studies was evaluated using available checklists. Multiple sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: A total of 21 studies were included for systematic review and 7 for meta-analysis. Across the 21 articles, diverse ML models were used, including random survival forest (N=16, 76.19%), gradient boosting (N=5, 23.81%), and deep learning (N=8, 38.09%). In predicting cancer survival outcomes, ML models showed no superior performance over CPH regression. The standardized mean difference in AUC or C-index was 0.01 (95% CI: -0.01 to 0.03). Results from the sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the main findings. Conclusions: ML models had similar performance compared with CPH models in predicting cancer survival outcomes. Although this systematic review highlights the promising use of ML to improve the quality of care in oncology, findings from this review also suggest opportunities to improve ML reporting transparency. Future systematic reviews should focus on the comparative performance between specific ML models and CPH regression in time-to-event outcomes in specific type of cancer or other disease areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]