Abstract
Background Somatic mutations play a crucial role in cancer initiation, progression, and treatment response. While high-throughput sequencing has vastly expanded our understanding of cancer genomics, interpreting the functional impact of novel somatic mutations remains challenging. Machine learning approaches show promise in predicting mutation impacts, but robust models for accurate prognosis across different cancer types are still needed.
Objective
This study aimed to develop and validate a machine learning model using the Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer (COSMIC) database to predict the functional impact of novel somatic mutations on cancer prognosis across various cancer types.
Methods
We extracted data on 6,573,214 coding point mutations across 1,391 cancer types from COSMIC v95. We engineered 47 features for each mutation, including sequence context, protein domain information, evolutionary conservation scores, and frequency data. We developed and compared Random Forest, XGBoost, and Deep Neural Network models, selecting XGBoost based on performance. The model was evaluated using standard metrics and externally validated using data from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA).
Results
The XGBoost model achieved an area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) of 0.89 on the test set and 0.86 on the TCGA validation set. The model demonstrated consistent performance across major cancer types (AUC-ROC range: 0.85-0.92). Key predictive features included evolutionary conservation score, protein domain disruption, and mutation frequency. The model correctly identified 87% of known driver mutations and predicted 3,241 potentially high-impact novel mutations. Model predictions significantly correlated with patient survival in the TCGA dataset (HR = 1.8, 95% CI: 1.6-2.0, p < 0.001).
Conclusions
Our machine learning model shows strong predictive power in assessing the functional impact of somatic mutations on cancer prognosis across various cancer types. This approach has potential applications in research prioritization and clinical decision support, contributing to the advancement of precision oncology.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study used ONLY openly available human data that were originally located at: The Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer (COSMIC) database (https://cancer.sanger.ac.uk/cosmic) The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) (https://www.cancer.gov/about-nci/organization/ccg/research/structural-genomics/tcga)
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the author.
Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below.
Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure
cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can
have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy
(via DOI)
is the canonical version.