Background: Lung cancer remains one of the leading causes of cancer-related mortality worldwide. However, prognostic models developed within a specific population may not be accurate when applied to another population due to differences in demographics and clinical practices. In the present study, we investigated the cross-national applicability of machine learning (ML)-based survival prediction models trained on population data from the United States and validated on an independent Chinese clinical cohort. Methods: Cox proportional hazards, Random Survival Forest (RSF), and XGBoost-Cox models were developed and externally validated. Model discrimination was evaluated using the concordance index (C-index) and time-dependent AUC at 1, 3, and 5 years, along with calibration and decision curve analysis. Hyperparameter tuning was performed using cross-validation to reduce overfitting and improve model generalizability. Results: Three survival prediction models were developed using the U.S. SEER database (n = 13,260) and externally validated in an independent Chinese cohort (n = 505). Baseline characteristics differed between the cohorts, with the Chinese cohort being younger and having a higher proportion of stage IA disease. Despite these differences, all models demonstrated acceptable discrimination. The RSF model was the most stable across cohorts and time horizons, with a C-index of 0.740 (95% CI: 0.735–0.746) in SEER and 0.782 (95% CI: 0.720–0.844) in the Chinese cohort. RSF showed good calibration at 1 and 3 years but slightly overestimated 5-year mortality risk in the Chinese cohort. Conclusions: Machine learning-based survival prediction models, such as the Random Survival Forest model, are promising and robust tools for predicting cross-population survival in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, differences in patient characteristics and treatment patterns may influence long-term model performance. These findings highlight the potential of flexible machine learning models in oncology and the essential role of rigorous external validation.
Joshi et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: