The feasibility of a Bayesian network model to assess the probability of simultaneous symptoms in patients with advanced cancer.

Introduction

Most patients with advanced cancer experience multiple symptoms simultaneously 1 . However, in daily practice the focus of symptom management is often on one or few main symptoms, that is, the symptoms that are spontaneously volunteered by the patient during regular history-taking 2 , 3 . This causes other simultaneous symptoms to remain unrelieved, which negatively impacts a patient’s functioning and quality of life 4 . Several solutions have been suggested for assessing symptom burden more comprehensively. Most notably, symptom assessment scales have shown to improve the assessment of total symptom burden 5 , 6 but it is difficult to widely implement such scales in both specialist and non-specialist palliative care settings 7 . In addition, efforts were made to identify which symptoms frequently occur simultaneously in patients with advanced cancer, so called symptom clusters 8 . Symptom cluster research has advanced the way simultaneous symptoms are approached theoretically, for example by fostering research about common etiologies of clusters 9 . However, symptom clusters are inconsistent across studies 8 and, perhaps as a result, cluster research has not yet convincingly impacted symptom assessment in daily practice 9 .

It could help clinicians prioritize which symptoms to assess if they are provided with the probability that their patient experiences specific simultaneous symptoms, based on volunteered main symptoms. For this purpose, a Bayesian network (BN) may be developed. A BN is a probabilistic graphical model used to visualize associations between large numbers of variables. In addition, in case of dichotomized variables, a BN can provide the conditional probability that a variable is present or absent, based on the presence or absence of other variables in the network. BNs have been widely used in medicine to predict outcomes such as diagnosis, functional outcome, quality of life and survival, based on patient and disease characteristics 10 – 15 . The advantage compared to other probabilistic modelling methods is that they do not need dedicated input and output variables and that they can be constructed in case of insufficient available evidence on associations between variables 15 . BNs are also easy to understand: The graphical structure makes associations between variables directly interpretable and the provided conditional probabilities align with clinical reasoning 15 , 16 . The aim of this study is to evaluate the statistical feasibility of a BN model for predicting the probability of a simultaneously occurring symptom, based on a patient’s other symptoms.

Methods

Context

This study is part of the Multidimensional Strategy for Palliative Care (MuSt-PC) project (2017–2021; NCT03665168 ). The project aims to improve multidimensional symptom management in palliative care by studying the prevalence of multidimensional symptoms in a national cross-sectional study 17 , evaluating the acceptability of a clinical decision support system (CDSS) according to various stakeholders 18 , assessing barriers and facilitators for multidimensional symptom management 19 , developing symptom management recommendations for simultaneously occurring symptoms and constructing a CDSS to support generalist clinicians.

Participants and study design

Data on symptom presence and severity were collected during four weeks in September and November 2018 in a nation-wide cross-sectional survey among patients with palliative care needs, regardless of their underlying illness. Physicians and nurses working in different care settings were asked to participate in data collection (general practices, nursing homes, hospices and outpatient departments and clinical wards of academic and community hospitals). Clinicians were asked to identify patients with palliative care needs, using a negative answer to the one-year surprise question as the sole inclusion criterion (answer “No” to the question “Would I be surprised if this patient died within the next twelve months?”) 20 . Patients unable or unwilling to self-assess their symptoms were excluded. In this study we performed a secondary analysis of collected data of patients with advanced cancer.

Measurements

In case of eligibility, the attending clinician asked their patient to complete a questionnaire to report their symptoms at the time of consultation. The questionnaire included the Utrecht Symptom Diary (USD), a validated Dutch translation and adaptation of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) 21 . The USD measures presence and severity of 11 symptoms on a 0-to-10-numeric rating scale (NRS) (0 = ‘no complaint’; 10 = ‘worst complaint possible’): Pain, sleeping problems, dry mouth, dysphagia, lack of appetite, constipation, nausea, shortness of breath, fatigue, anxiety and depressed mood. Additionally, the questionnaire contained questions on demographic, treatment and disease characteristics, including a Patient Reported Performance Status (PRFS; scale 1–4). A PRFS 1 indicated ‘not my normal self, but able to be up and about with fairly normal activities’ and a PRFS 4 indicated ‘pretty much bedridden, rarely out of bed’ (see Table 1 ) 22 . Questionnaires were available via a secured website or on paper.

Statistical analysis

Frequencies of demographic, disease and treatment characteristic were analyzed using descriptive statistics. In case of missing values, symptom scores (NRS 0–10) were estimated using k-nearest neighbor imputation (k = 5) 23 . Scores were dichotomized into clinically relevant (≥ 4) and not clinically relevant (< 4), since an ESAS score of ≥ 4 is generally considered as the cut-off point for symptoms that require additional assessment 21 , 24 . For each of the USD-listed symptoms, the frequency of clinically relevant symptom scores was calculated.

Bayesian network development

A Bayesian network (BN) was developed to assess whether the presence or absence of a clinically relevant USD-listed symptom could be predicted based on the presence or absence of the other 10 USD-listed symptoms. The dichotomized symptom scores of the 11 USD-listed symptoms served as the network’s variables.

BN development consists of two stages: Structure learning and parameter learning. During structure learning, a graphical structure is constructed: The directed acyclic graph (DAG) (Fig. 1 ). In the DAG, edges point from parent nodes towards child nodes, indicating that the model found a direct association, or conditional dependency, between those variables. The DAG presented in this study is based on the total dataset as a way of presenting the mean DAG for our data. All other analyses were conducted per fold within a fourfold cross validation set-up.

Structure learning was done using 9 automated BN algorithms (constraint-based, score-based and hybrid learning). For each of the four resulting DAGs, the Akaike information criterion (AIC) score was calculated. The AIC indicates how accurate a model will be able to predict future data, but only in comparison to other algorithms. The highest AIC score denoted the lowest prediction error estimate 25 .

The algorithm with the highest mean AIC across the four folds was then used for parameter learning. During parameter learning, a conditional probability table (CPT) is calculated for each dichotomized symptom in the model. In theory, conditional probabilities of the presence or absence of each symptom can be calculated, based on the presence or absence of all other variables that the symptom is directly or indirectly connected with in the DAG. In this study, we labelled symptoms that the model identified as parent nodes as ‘main symptoms’ and labelled child nodes as ‘simultaneous symptoms’. We only present the predicted probabilities of the presence of child nodes based on the presence or absence of parent nodes. That way, we limited the number of analyses to illustrate the use of a BN model in a simplified manner.

Predictive performance and calibration of the Bayesian network

For the algorithm with the highest AIC score, a mean AUC score over the four folds was calculated per simultaneous symptom and accepted as the model’s overall AUC-ROC. The AUC-ROC indicates how well the BN model can determine the outcome for an individual patient (simultaneous symptom present or absent), based on the presence or absence of the other 10 USD-listed symptoms. In general, an AUC-ROC of 0.5 implies a lack of predictive performance and an AUC-ROC of > 0.9 implies outstanding predictive performance 26 . An AUC-ROC of ≥ 0.65 was considered satisfactory. We also aimed to determine how accurate the BN was in predicting the conditional probabilites of a patient experiencing each simultaneous symptom, based on the presence or absence of the other 10 USD-listed symptoms. For this purpose, a calibration plot was constructed for each symptom using the model's predictions for all four test sets of the cross validation. Patients in the dataset were grouped into deciles, based on their similar predicted conditional probabilities of experiencing the symptom by the BN model. The mean conditional probability predicted by the model was plotted against the mean observed frequency in the dataset per decile. A > 10% difference between predicted and observed conditional probabilities was considered an inaccurate calibration. R 4.1.0 and bn learn R package 4.7 were used to conduct analyses.

Development of a symptom prediction system

We aimed to indicate the potential of using a BN model for the development of a symptom prediction system. Based on the BN, we propose a preliminary symptom prediction flow-chart that uses main symptoms that can directly predict the presence or absence of simultaneous symptoms as system input. In addition, the system’s input should preferably consist of those symptoms that are most frequently volunteered by patients with advanced cancer after open-ended questioning during regular history-taking. The only available study on this subject by Homsi et al. identified that pain and fatigue are the most frequently volunteered symptoms, by 50.5% and 25.5% of patients with advanced cancer, respectively. Pain and fatigue were followed by anorexia (13.5%) and constipation (5.5%) 5 .

Ethical considerations

The Medical Ethics Review Board of the University Medical Center Groningen approved the research protocol (NCT number 03665168) and waived informed consent (12 June 2018). Data in this study were anonymously obtained and recorded. The opt-in method was used with an anonymous consent statement for study participation and publication of data, to ensure no personal information was reported. The study was conducted in full compliance with the codes of ethical conduct from the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki.

Results

Baseline characteristics

The survey was returned by 532 patients with advanced cancer. Twenty-six questionnaires had 1 to 3 missing scores, resulting in 36 missing symptom scores and 5816 complete symptom scores. An overview of baseline characteristics is shown in Table 1 . The most frequently reported primary cancer site was lung (19.0%), colon (15.2%), and breast (13.0%), and 70% had metastatic cancer. In the 3 months prior to data collection, 49.4% received systemic therapy and 24.8% radiotherapy. A patient-reported functional status (PRFS) 22 of 1 was reported by 33.5%; a PRFS of 3 or 4 was reported by 35.8%. At the time of the survey, 51% of patients resided at home. Table 1 Baseline characteristics and symptom burden of participants with advanced cancer, who filled out the cross-sectional symptom assessment survey. Characteristics Participants n = 532 n (%) Age category 30–45 years 15 (2.8) 46–67 years 208 (39.1) 68–80 years 222 (41.7) ≥ 81 years 84 (15.8) Unknown 3 (0.6) Gender Male 277 (52.1) Female 252 (47.4) Unknown 3 (0.6) Primary cancer site a Breast 69 (13.0) Melanoma 16 (3.0) Lymphatic system/ leukemia 17 (3.2) Bladder/urinary tract 23 (4.3) Colon 81 (15.2) Lung 101 (19.0) Prostate 56 (10.5) Kidney 14 (2.6) Endometrium 6 (1.1) Ovaries 16 (3.0) Pancreas 34 (6.4) Head/neck 23 (4.3) Esophagus 15 (2.8) Liver 10 (1.9) Brain 13 (2.4) Neuroendocrine tumours 10 (1.9) Other b 71 (13.3) Metastases Yes 373 (70.1) Disease modifying treatment during last 3 months Systemic therapy c 263 (49.4) Radiotherapy 132 (24.8) Surgery 44 (8.3) No 192 (36.0) Patient-reported functional status d 0 61 (11.5) 1 178 (33.5) 2 95 (17.9) 3 145 (27.3) 4 45 (8.5) Place of residence At home 275 (51.7) Hospital 75 (14.1) Hospice 158 (29.7) Nursing home 10 (1.9) Other e 4 (0.8) Symptom score ≥ 4 Pain 195 (36.6) Sleeping problems 209 (39.3) Dry mouth 241 (45.3) Dysphagia 111 (20.9) Lack of appetite 274 (51.5) Constipation 265 (49.8) Nausea 64 (12.0) Shortness of breath 99 (18.6) Fatigue 344 (64.7) Anxiety 131 (24.6) Depressed mood 161 (30.3) a Cancer site exceeds 100% because patients had more than one primary cancer site. b Other primary cancer sites: Bonemarrow, M. Kahler, multiple myeloma, bone, gallbladder, cholangiocarcinoma, small intestine, anal cancer, stomach cancer, basal skin carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma of the skin, leiomyosarcoma, sarcoma, GIST, cervical cancer, vaginal cancer, mesothelioma. c Chemotherapy and/or hormone therapy and/or immunotherapy and/or other (intravenous immunoglobulin therapy, angiogenesis inhibitors, BRAF targeted therapy, unspecified targeted therapy). d Patient-reported functional status 22 : 0 = normal with no limitations; 1 = not my normal self, but able to be up and about with fairly normal activities; 2 = not feeling up to most things, but in bed or chair less than half of the day; 3 = able to do little activity and spend most of the day in bed or chair; 4 = pretty much bedridden, rarely out of bed. e Living facility for mentally disabled people, rehabilitation center, care home, care hotel.

Symptom burden

Fatigue was experienced by 64.7% and 51.5% experienced lack of appetite as a clinically relevant symptom (NRS ≥ 4; see Table 1 ). Clinically relevant constipation was reported by 49.8% of patients, dry mouth by 45.3%, sleeping problems by 39.3% and pain by 36.6%. Clinically relevant depressed mood was reported by 30.3% of patients, anxiety by 24.6%, dysphagia by 20.9%, shortness of breath by 18.6% and nausea by 12.0%.

Bayesian network model

Of the 9 tested automated BN algorithms, Tabu search algorithm 27 had the highest AIC score. An overview of AIC scores for all tested algorithms is provided in Supplementary Fig. 1 . When trained on the full data set, the Tabu search algorithm constructed the BN structure shown in Fig. 1 . Each node represents 1 of the 11 USD-listed symptoms. In the identified BN structure, fatigue was most frequently directly associated with other USD-listed symptoms. Experiencing shortness of breath, dry mouth, anxiety, nausea, pain, sleeping problems and lack of appetite was conditionally dependent on whether a patient experienced fatigue. Figure 1 Directed acyclic graph of the Baysian network; as constructed during structure learning by the algorithm with the lowest prediction error estimate (Tabu search algorithm). Edges (arrows) between nodes indicate that the model found a direct association between those variables. An edge points from a parent node towards a child node, indicating that the BN structure found that the child node is conditionally dependent on the parent node.

The model predicted a conditional probability of > 75% of experiencing a specific simultaneous symptom based on the absence or presence of other USD-listed symptoms for the following combinations (Table 2 ): Patients who experienced fatigue and dysphagia had a 80.0% probability of experiencing a lack of appetite and also experiencing dysphagia and no fatigue also gave a probability of 81.0% of a lack of appetite. Experiencing dysphagia and a lack of appetite gave a 78.7% probability of experiencing constipation. Experiencing anxiety and a dry mouth gave a probability of 79.8% of a depressed mood, and also experiencing anxiety and not having a dry mouth gave a probability of 76.4% of a depressed mood. Table 2 Conditional probability of the presence per simultaneous symptom based on the presence ( +) and absence (−) of main symptom(s), as estimated by the Bayesian network model. Main symptom a Main symptom a Predicted simultaneous symptom Conditional probability of experiencing simultaneous symptom (%) Fatigue + Sleeping problems + Pain 54.4 Fatigue + Sleeping problems − 37.6 Fatigue − Sleeping problems + 40.0 Fatigue − Sleeping problems − 13.8 Fatigue + Anxiety + Sleeping problems 63.5 Fatigue + Anxiety − 41.4 Fatigue − Anxiety + 56.3 Fatigue − Anxiety − 18.3 Fatigue + Sleeping problems + Dry mouth 62.7 Fatigue + Sleeping problems − 47.8 Fatigue – Sleeping problems + 45.0 Fatigue − Sleeping problems − 22.8 Dry mouth + Nausea + Dysphagia 54.2 Dry mouth + Nausea − 33.0 Dry mouth − Nausea + 31.3 Dry mouth − Nausea − 5.8 Fatigue + Dysphagia + Lack of appetite 80.0 Fatigue + Dysphagia − 56.4 Fatigue − Dysphagia + 81.0 Fatigue − Dysphagia − 24.4 Dysphagia + Lack of appetite + Constipation 78.7 Dysphagia + Lack of appetite − 50.0 Dysphagia − Lack of appetite + 56.8 Dysphagia − Lack of appetite − 33.9 Fatigue + Depressed mood + Nausea 30.1 Fatigue + Depressed mood − 9.5 Fatigue − Depressed mood + 4.0 Fatigue − Depressed mood − 1.3 Fatigue + Dry mouth + Shortness of breath 36.1 Fatigue + Dry mouth − 16.0 Fatigue − Dry mouth + 5.9 Fatigue − Dry mouth − 2.2 – – Fatigue 64.7 Fatigue + Anxiety 33.1 Fatigue − 8.6 Anxiety + Dry mouth + Depressed mood 78.9 Anxiety + Dry mouth − 76.4 Anxiety − Dry mouth + 22.9 Anxiety − Dry mouth − 8.9 a + : Symptom score on symptom assessment scale ≥ 4. a −: Symptom score on symptom assessment scale < 4.

Predictive performance and calibration of the Bayesian network

The mean AUC-ROC per predicted symptom (see Supplementary Table 1 for AUC-ROCs per cross-validation fold) varied between 0.60 for pain and sleeping problems and 0.78 for depressed mood (Table 3 ). AUCs were satisfactory (≥ 0.65) for 8 out of 11 symptoms. The calibration plots show the mean predicted probabilites plotted against the mean observed frequentcies per decile (Fig. 2 ). The model accurately predicted 101 of a total of 110 conditional probabilities. For 7/11 symptoms, all predicted conditional probabilities were accurate at calibration. A difference of > 10% between predicted probabilities and observed frequencies was observed for sleeping problems (2 deciles), dry mouth (3 deciles), constipation (2 deciles) fatigue (1 decile) and anxiety (1 decile). Table3 Predictive performance of the Bayesian network model per symptom, as measured by the mean area under the receiver operating curve calculated using fourfold cross-validation. Predicted simultaneous symptom AUC-ROC a SD b Pain 0.60 0.07 Sleeping problems 0.60 0.08 Dry mouth 0.66 0.10 Dysphagia 0.70 0.09 Lack of appetite 0.70 0.05 Constipation 0.65 0.03 Nausea 0.75 0.04 Shortness of breath 0.65 0.12 Fatigue 0.64 0.10 Anxiety 0.70 0.08 Depressed mood 0.78 0.01 AUC-ROC Area under the receiver operating curve, SD standard deviation. a Mean AUC-ROC of fourfold cross-validation. b Mean SD of fourfold cross-validation. Figure 2 Calibration plots per predicted simultaneous symptom. The mean observed frequencies are plotted against the mean predicted probabilites per decile. Each decile represents a group of patients with a similar conditional probabilty predicted by the model. The black line corresponds to a model with ideal calibration, that is, a model that perfectly predicts the conditional probabilities.

Symptom prediction flow-chart

We propose a flow-chart (Fig. 3 ) based on the BN structure (Fig. 1 ) and conditional probabilities predicted by the BN (Table 2 ) to illustrate the potential of BN development for a clinical symptom prediction system. Fatigue serves as the system’s starting point because it was the symptoms that was most frequently directly associated with other symptoms and moreover, is the second most frequently volunteered symptom by patients with advanced cancer in available research 5 . Figure 3 Preliminary symptom prediction system that uses the presence of fatigue as system input. Fatigue is the second most frequently volunteered symptom by patients with advanced cancer 5 , and in our Bayesian network this symptom was identified as the symptom that most frequently was directly associated with other USD-listed symptoms (7 other symptoms). When using fatigue as system input, the conditional probabilities (%) of the patient also experiencing pain, dry mouth, sleeping problems, lack of appetite, nausea, shortness of breath and anxiety can be presented. This may help clinicians to prioritize which symptoms to assess.

Discussion

Main findings

We evaluated the statistical feasibility of developing a Bayesian network (BN) for predicting the presence of simultaneous symptoms, based on the presence or absence of a patient’s other symptoms. By presenting the probability of experiencing specific simultaneous symptoms, we aim to help clinicians prioritize which symptoms to assess during consultations. The developed BN model had satisfactory performance in predicting the presence or absence of 8 out of 11 USD-listed symptoms, indicated by an AUC-ROC of ≥ 0.65. Model calibration showed that 101 out of a total of 110 conditional probabilities predicted by the BN model were accurate. Fatigue was most frequently directly associated with other USD-listed symptoms and seems most eligble to serve as the starting symptom in a future symptom prediction system.

Identified direct associations between symptoms

All direct associations between symptoms, represented by the edges (arrows) in the BN structure, were also identified in at least one previous symptom cluster study among patients with advanced cancer. Previously identified were associations between fatigue and pain 28 , 29 , sleeping problems and pain 30 , fatigue and sleeping problems 30 , 31 , anxiety and sleeping problems 32 , dysphagia and dry mouth 33 , fatigue and anxiety 34 , fatigue and a lack of appetite 32 , 35 , 36 , dysphagia and lack of appetite 33 , dysphagia and constipation 33 , a lack of appetite and constipation 33 , fatigue and nausea 35 dry mouth and shortness of breath 37 , fatigue and shortness of breath 31 , 38 , 39 , fatigue and anxiety 36 , 40 ,sleeping problems and anxiety 32 , 37 , sleeping problems and dry mouth 41 , fatigue and dry mouth 37 , depressed mood and nausea 42 , dry mouth and depressed mood 30 , nausea and dysphagia 33 and anxiety and depressed mood 32 , 35 – 37 , 39 , 43 .

In line with previous studies, fatigue was most frequently directly associated with other ESAS symptoms, seven in total. Fatigue is the most prevalent symptom in patients with advanced cancer, both in our study and in others 44 . Also similar to our findings, others have found that contributory factors of cancer-related fatigue include pain, sleep disturbances, emotional disturbances, depression, anxiety and weight loss 45 . Vice versa, fatigue may be a contributing factor in how severe patients experience the associated seven other ESAS symptoms. Fatigue has been found to be one of the most distressing symptoms in patients with cancer and often is accompanied by mental fatigue, including emotional liability 45 , 46 . These psychological factors may affect how well patients are able to cope with their other symptoms. Our ultimate aim is to use the results of a BN model for developing a clinical symptom prediction system that present clinicians with the probability that their patient experiences specific simultaneous symptoms, based on the main symptom(s) a patient volunteers during regular history taking. For this purpose, the BN model should be validated on an external dataset. External validation is a crucial step in verifying a model’s generalizibility 15 . In the external dataset, data should preferably be available on the actual volunteered main symptom(s) by patients during regular history taking. This information was absent in the current study, which likely influenced the identified assocations between symptoms. In addition to external validation, future research should aim to gain more certainty about the directions of the edges in the BN structure. This is important because the direction of the edges in the identified BN structure remains uncertain, due to the fact that automated learning was used to develop the BN. This was the only option because there was no consistent available evidence about associations between symptoms to facilitate hybrid causal learning, which means a BN model is developed based on a combination of initial expert knowledge and automated learning 47 . Automated learning may result in edges that point in a certain direction for other reasons than that it best fits the data, for example, to simplify the constructed network. When developing a final BN model to support a symptom prediction system, the probability of the edges’ directions between symptoms could be further assessed by the methods used by McNally et al., who used BN development for gaining insight in associations between the symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder 48 . They determined the direction of each edge between symptoms in 10.000 bootstrapped networks. If a direction of an edge was present in at least 51% of networks, this was considered the edge’s direction.

Predictive preformance and model calibration

The developed BN model had an AUC-ROC of ≥ 0.65 for 8 out of 11 USD-listed symptoms. For the purpose of advising clinicians which symptoms to assess, we considered an AUC-ROC of ≥ 0.65 a satisfactory predictive performance because it is considerably better than chance (AUC-ROC = 0.5) 26 . Moreover, the consequences of symptom prediction being wrong are small, in comparison to, for example, diagnostic tests in which one generally strives for AUC scores > 0.95 because the consequences of being wrong are severe. For the same reason, we considered a difference of ≤ 10% between predicted an observed probability in model calibration acceptable.

Potential of using Bayesian networks for symptom prediction

Using BNs to develop a symptom prediction system is a promising approach because additional variables can easily be added as the model’s variables in future research 15 , for example the patient’s age, gender, primary cancer site, functional status and disease-modifing treatment during the previous 3 months. It is likely that conditional dependency between these variables and symptoms will be identified, as others have previously identified variables such as cancer site, age and gender as predictors for differences in symptom cluster composition 8 . Inclusion of these variables may enable symptom prediction to be further individualized. In addition, problems in other than the physical and psychological dimension of palliative care could be used as variables in the BN. The Utrecht Symptom Diary (USD), a Dutch adaptation of the ESAS, was used for data analysis, which measures 11 symptoms, whereas advanced cancer patients usually experience a wider array of physical symptoms and psychological, social and existential problems 49 . Multidimensional symptoms and problems could serve as variables for future BN development to gain further insight into the complex associations between physical symptoms and non-physical problems.

The purpose of the proposed symptom prediction system is to help clinician prioritize which symptoms to assess. Since the need for prioritization will largely depend on the amount of time a clinician has available for symptom assessment, we propose that in the future system a clinician can indicate whether they have sufficient or limited time. In case of limited time, the clinician will likely only want to asses those simultaneous symptoms that are highly likely present. This could be achieved by establishing two different probability thresholds within the system, above which clinicians are advised to assess a specific simultaneous symptom. Probability thresholds can be extracted from the model’s AUC-ROC, with a specific sensitivity and specificity per threshold. If time is limited, we suggest to adhere to a threshold with relatively high specificity (low probability of false positives) and in case of sufficient time, to adhere to a threshold with high sensitivity (low probability of false negatives). When evaluating the effect of using the proposed symptom prediction system in the future, it should be noted that the ultimate problem of missing out on important symptoms is the fact that the single missed symptoms are not targeted in regular history taking and that the complex interaction of multiple symptoms is not taken into account when choosing a treatment strategy to try to relieve the patient’s total symptom burden. We therefore suggest the following positive clinical outcome of using a symptom prediction system: a significant clinically relevant relief of overall symptom burden in patients of clinicians that used the symptom prediction system compared to patients of clinicians who identified symptoms through regular history taking.

Limitations and strenghts

In this study, a symptom assessment scale was used for data collection. To illustrate the potential of BN development we labelled symptoms as ‘main symptoms’ and ‘simultaneous symptoms’. However, we want to underline that no data were available on the actual volunteered main symptom(s) of patients. This has likely affected the identified associations between symptoms. Therefore, the current results cannot be used to present clinicians with the probability that a patient experiences specific simultaneous symptoms, based on the main volunteered symptom(s) during regular history taking.

USD scores were dichotomized into clinically relevant (≥ 4) and not relevant (< 4) since an ESAS score of ≥ 4 is generally considered as the cut off point for symptoms that require additional assessment 21 , 24 . Moreover, BN development is easier to illustrate using dichotomized variables, as dichotomization minimizes the number of combinations and opportunities. This dichotomization determined whether a symptom was considered present (score ≥ 4) or absent (score < 4). In future research, instead of dichotomizing the symptoms, the ESAS scores could also be categorized into severity categories (mild, moderate, severe) 50 . This way, it can be evaluated to what extent BN structure and conditional probabilites differ when ESAS scores are dichotomized or categorized. It may be argued that imputation of missing symptom scores influenced the BN structure and conditional probabilities. However, we consider this effect neglectable because only 26 symptom scores of overall 5852 symptom scores were missing in the data set. A strength of this study is that, to our knowledge, we are first to present the idea of a symptom prediction system that quantifies the probability of a patient experiencing a simultaneous symptom based on their volunteered symptoms, which we believe could be a valuable addition to the solutions already offered for improving symptom assessment in patients with advanced cancer.

Conclusion

It is feasible to use BN development to support clinicians in prioritizing symptom assessment. The developed model was able to predict the probability that patients experience specific simultaneous symptoms based on the presence or absence of their other symptoms, given the model’s satisfactory predictive performance for 8 out of 11 symptoms. Moreover, the conditional probabilities that the BN model predicted were generally accurate. BN development could support the implementation of a symptom prediction system to help clinicians prioritize the asssesment of simultaneous symptoms in patients with advanced cancer. Fatigue seems most eligible to serves as a starting symptom of such a system. To develop a symptom prediction system, future research is needed to validate the identified model using an external dataset.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information.

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41598-022-26342-4.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all participating centres, the healthcare professionals who helped with patient recruitement and the patients who provided the survey data.

Author contributions

Study design: L.S., A.H., A.R., Y.L. Conceptualization: L.S., Y.L. Data collection: L.S., A.H., A.R., Y.L. Methodology: M.H., E.M., P.J., J.B., M.S., R.L. Formal analysis: M.H., E.M., R.L. Writing and drafting manuscript: L.S., M.H., E.M. Revision and editing of manuscript: M.H., E.M., A.H., P.J., J.B., M.S., R.L., A.R., Y.L. Funding acquisition: A.R., Y.L. Supervision: R.L., A.R., Y.L.

Funding

This study was funded by a grant from ZonMw, The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (grant number 844001402).

Data availability

The dataset and code used in this study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

References

1. Gilbertson-White S Aouizerat BE Jahan T Miaskowski C A review of the literature on multiple symptoms, their predictors, and associated outcomes in patients with advanced cancer Palliat. Support Care 2011 9 81 102 10.1017/S147895151000057X 21352621

2. Okuyama T Akechi T Yamashita H Toyama T Nakaguchi T Uchida M Oncologists' recognition of supportive care needs and symptoms of their patients in a breast cancer outpatient consultation Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol. 2011 41 1251 1258 10.1093/jjco/hyr146 22003206

3. Laugsand EA Sprangers MA Bjordal K Skorpen F Kaasa S Klepstad P Health care providers underestimate symptom intensities of cancer patients: A multicenter European study Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2010 8 104 10.1186/1477-7525-8-104 20858248 PMC2949821

4. Miaskowski C Dodd M Lee K Symptom clusters: the new frontier in symptom management research J. Natl. Cancer Inst. Monogr. 2004 32 17 21 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgh023 15263036

5. Homsi J Walsh D Rivera N Rybicki LA Nelson KA Legrand SB Symptom evaluation in palliative medicine: Patient report vs systematic assessment Support Care Cancer 2006 14 444 453 10.1007/s00520-005-0009-2 16402231

6. Hui D Bruera E The Edmonton symptom assessment system 25 years later: Past, present, and future developments J. Pain Symptom Manage. 2017 53 630 643 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2016.10.370 28042071 PMC5337174

7. Schick-Makaroff K Sawatzky R QR Team Divergent perspectives on the use of the edmonton symptom assessment system (Revised) in palliative care J. Hospice Palliat. Nurs. 2020 22 1 75 81 10.1097/NJH.0000000000000617 31842176

8. Dong ST Butow PN Costa DS Lovell MR Agar M Symptom clusters in patients with advanced cancer: A systematic review of observational studies J. Pain Symptom Manage. 2014 48 411 450 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2013.10.027 24703941

9. Miaskowski C Barsevick A Berger A Casagrande R Grady PA Jacobsen P Advancing symptom science through symptom cluster research: Expert panel proceedings and recommendations J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2017 109 4 10.1093/jnci/djw253 PMC5939621 28119347

10. Sieswerda MS Bermejo I Geleijnse G Aarts MJ Lemmens V De Ruysscher D Predicting lung cancer survival using probabilistic reclassification of TNM editions with a Bayesian network JCO Clin. Cancer Inform. 2020 4 436 443 10.1200/CCI.19.00136 32392098 PMC7265790

11. Karaboga HA Gunel A Korkut SV Demir I Celik R Bayesian network as a decision tool for predicting ALS disease Brain Sci. 2021 11 2 10.3390/brainsci11020150 PMC7912628 33498784

12. Kaewprag P Newton C Vermillion B Hyun S Huang K Machiraju R Predictive models for pressure ulcers from intensive care unit electronic health records using Bayesian networks BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Making 2017 2 65 10.1186/s12911-017-0471-z PMC5506589 28699545

13. Crump C Saxena S Wilson B Farrell P Rafiq A Silvers CT Using Bayesian networks and rule-based trending to predict patient status in the intensive care unit AMIA Annu. Symp. Proc. 2009 9 124 128 PMC2815467 20351835

14. Xu S Thompson W Ancoli-Israel S Liu L Palmer B Natarajan L Cognition, quality-of-life, and symptom clusters in breast cancer: Using Bayesian networks to elucidate complex relationships Psychooncology 2018 27 802 809 10.1002/pon.4571 29055062 PMC5840020

15. Kyrimi E Dube K Fenton N Fahmi A Neves MR Marsh W Bayesian networks in healthcare: What is preventing their adoption? Artif. Intell. Med. 2021 116 102079 10.1016/j.artmed.2021.102079 34020755

16. Park E Chang HJ Nam HS A Bayesian network model for predicting post-stroke outcomes with available risk factors Front. Neurol. 2018 9 699 10.3389/fneur.2018.00699 30245663 PMC6137617

17. De Heij AH van der Stap L Renken R van der Heide A Engels Y Fransen HP Abstracts from the 11th EAPC World Research Congress Online, Abstract number FC74 Identification of symptom clusters in a palliative care trajectory; the multidimensional strategies for palliative care study (MuSt-PC) Palliat. Med. 2020 34 38

18. van der Stap, L., De Heij, A. H., van der Heide, A,, Reyners, A. K. L., van der Linden, Y. M. A Clinical decision support system to optimize symptom management in palliative medicine: Focus group study. BMJ Support Palliat Care 002940 (2021). 10.1136/bmjspcare-2021-002940 34272271

19. van der Stap L De Heij A van der Heide A Reyners AKL van der Linden YM Barriers and facilitators to multidimensional symptom management in palliative care: A focus group study among patient representatives and clinicians Palliat Support Care 2020 30 1 12 10.1017/S147895152200133X 36177886

20. Downar J Goldman R Pinto R Englesakis M Adhikari NK The "surprise question" for predicting death in seriously ill patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis CMAJ 2017 189 E484 E493 10.1503/cmaj.160775 28385893 PMC5378508

21. van der Baan FH Koldenhof JJ de Nijs EJ Echteld MA Zweers D Hesselmann GM Validation of the Dutch version of the Edmonton symptom assessment system Cancer Med. 2020 9 6111 21 10.1002/cam4.3253 32643871 PMC7476846

22. Popovic G Harhara T Pope A Al-Awamer A Banerjee S Bryson J Patient-reported functional status in outpatients with advanced cancer: Correlation with physician-reported scores and survival J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2018 55 1500 1508 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2018.02.015 29496534

23. Massidda, D. (2019). Missing data replacement by k-Nearest neighbor. https://rdrr.io/github/DavideMassidda/testing/man/knn.impute.html . Accessed 28 June 2019.

24. Oldenmenger WH de Raaf PJ de Klerk C van der Rijt CC Cut points on 0–10 numeric rating scales for symptoms included in the Edmonton symptom assessment scale in cancer patients: A systematic review J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2013 45 1083 1093 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2012.06.007 23017617

25. Shmueli G To explain or to predict? Stat. Sci. 2010 25 289 310 10.1214/10-STS330

26. Hosmer, D. W. Assessing the fit of the model. In Applied Logistic Regression 2nd edn 178 (John Wiley & Sons, 2000).

27. Russel, S. & Norvig, P. Beyond classical search. In Artifical Intelligence: A Modern Approach 3rd edn 155 (Pearson Education Inc, 2010).

28. Yennurajalingam S Kwon JH Urbauer DL Hui D Reyes-Gibby CC Bruera E Consistency of symptom clusters among advanced cancer patients seen at an outpatient supportive care clinic in a tertiary cancer center Palliat. Support Care 2013 11 473 480 10.1017/S1478951512000879 23388652

29. Chow E Fan G Hadi S Filipczak L Symptom clusters in cancer patients with bone metastases Support Care Cancer 2007 15 1035 1043 10.1007/s00520-007-0241-z 17394024

30. Chaiviboontham S Viwatwongkasem C Hanucharurnkul S McCorkle R Symptom clusters in Thais with advanced cancer Pacific Rim. Int. J. Nurs. Res. 2011 15 265 277

31. Francoeur RB The relationship of cancer symptom clusters to depressive affect in the initial phase of palliative radiation J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2005 29 130 155 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2004.04.014 PMC1945048 15733806

32. Jiménez A Madero R Alonso A Martínez-Marín V Vilches Y Martínez B Symptom clusters in advanced cancer J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2011 42 24 31 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2010.10.266 21402468

33. Tsai JS Wu CH Chiu TY Chen CY Significance of symptom clustering in palliative care of advanced cancer patients J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2010 39 655 662 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2009.09.005 20226623

34. Chan CW Richardson A Richardson J A study to assess the existence of the symptom cluster of breathlessness, fatigue and anxiety in patients with advanced lung cancer Eur. J. Oncol. Nurs. 2005 9 325 333 10.1016/j.ejon.2005.02.003 16298550

35. Cheung WY Le LW Zimmermann C Symptom clusters in patients with advanced cancers Support. Care Cancer 2009 17 1223 1230 10.1007/s00520-009-0577-7 19184126

36. Husain A Myers J Selby D Thomson B Chow E Subgroups of advanced cancer patients clustered by their symptom profiles: Quality-of-life outcomes J. Palliat. Med. 2011 14 1246 1253 10.1089/jpm.2011.0112 22004119

37. Walsh D Rybicki L Symptom clustering in advanced cancer Support Care Cancer 2006 14 831 836 10.1007/s00520-005-0899-z 16482450

38. Cheung WY Barmala N Zarinehbaf S Rodin G Le LW Zimmermann C The association of physical and psychological symptom burden with time to death among palliative cancer outpatients J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2009 37 297 304 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2008.03.008 18694634

39. Fan G Hadi S Chow E Symptom clusters in patients with advanced-stage cancer referred for palliative radiation therapy in an outpatient setting Support Cancer Ther. 2007 4 157 162 10.3816/SCT.2007.n.010 18632482

40. Bender CM Ergÿn FS Rosenzweig MQ Cohen SM Sereika SM Symptom clusters in breast cancer across 3 phases of the disease Cancer Nurs. 2005 28 219 225 10.1097/00002820-200505000-00011 15915067

41. Wang XS Fairclough DL Liao Z Komaki R Chang JY Mobley GM Longitudinal study of the relationship between chemoradiation therapy for non-small-cell lung cancer and patient symptoms J. Clin. Oncol. 2006 24 4485 4491 10.1200/JCO.2006.07.1126 16983118

42. Chen E Nguyen J Cramarossa G Khan L Zhang L Tsao M Symptom clusters in patients with advanced cancer: Sub-analysis of patients reporting exclusively non-zero ESAS scores Palliat. Med 2012 26 826 833 10.1177/0269216311420197 21865296

43. Kirkova J Aktas A Walsh D Rybicki L Davis MP Consistency of symptom clusters in advanced cancer Am. J. Hosp. Palliat. Care 2010 27 342 346 10.1177/1049909110369869 20466939

44. Barnes EA Bruera E Fatigue in patients with advanced cancer: A review Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2002 12 424 428 10.1136/ijgc-00009577-200209000-00002 12366656

45. Hawthorn M Fatigue in patients with advanced cancer Int. J. Palliat. Nurs 2010 16 536 541 10.12968/ijpn.2010.16.11.80023 21135786

46. Bower JE Cancer-related fatigue—Mechanisms, risk factors, and treatments Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2014 11 597 609 10.1038/nrclinonc.2014.127 25113839 PMC4664449

47. Julia Flores M Nicholson AE Brunskill A Korb KB Mascaro S Incorporating expert knowledge when learning Bayesian network structure: A medical case study Artif. Intell. Med. 2011 53 181 204 10.1016/j.artmed.2011.08.004 21958683

48. McNally RJ Heeren A Robinaugh DJ A Bayesian network analysis of posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms in adults reporting childhood sexual abuse Eur. J. Psychotraumatol. 2017 8 1341276 10.1080/20008198.2017.1341276 29038690 PMC5632780

49. Krikorian A Limonero JT Román JP Vargas JJ Palacio C Predictors of suffering in advanced cancer Am. J. Hosp. Palliat. Care 2014 31 534 542 10.1177/1049909113494092 23869029

50. Selby D Cascella A Gardiner K Do R Moravan V Myers J A single set of numerical cutpoints to define moderate and severe symptoms for the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2010 39 241 249 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2009.06.010 19963335