Background and objectives: Deep learning (DL)-based models for predicting the survival of patients with local stages of breast cancer only use time-fixed covariates, i.e., patient and cancer data at the time of diagnosis. These predictions are inherently error-prone because they do not consider time-varying events that occur after initial diagnosis. Our objective is to improve the predictive modeling of survival of patients with localized breast cancer to consider both time-fixed and time-varying events; thus, we take into account the progression of a patient’s health status over time. Methods: We extended four DL-based predictive survival models (DeepSurv, DeepHit, Nnet-survival, and Cox-Time) that deal with right-censored time-to-event data to consider not only a patient’s time-fixed covariates (patient and cancer data at diagnosis) but also a patient’s time-varying covariates (e.g., treatments, comorbidities, progressive age, frailty index, adverse events from treatment). We utilized, as our study data, the SEER-Medicare linked dataset from 1991 to 2016 to study a population of women diagnosed with stage I–III breast cancer (BC) enrolled in Medicare at 65 years or older as qualified by age. We delineated time-fixed variables recorded at the time of diagnosis, including age, race, marital status, breast cancer stage, tumor grade, laterality, estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal receptor 2 (HER2) status, and comorbidity index. We analyzed six distinct prognostic categories, cancer stages I–III BC, and each stage’s ER/PR+ or ER/PR− status. At each visit, we delineated the time-varying covariates of administered treatments, induced adverse events, comorbidity index, and age. We predicted the survival of three hypothetical patients to demonstrate the model’s utility. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes of the modeling were the measures of the model’s prediction error, as measured by the concordance index, the most commonly applied evaluation metric in survival analysis, and the integrated Brier score, a metric of the model’s discrimination and calibration. Results: The proposed extended patients’ covariates that include both time-fixed and time-varying covariates significantly improved the deep learning models’ prediction error and the discrimination and calibration of a model’s estimates. The prediction of the four DL models using time-fixed covariates in six different prognostic categories all resulted in approximately a 30% error in all six categories. When applying the proposed extension to include time-varying covariates, the accuracy of all four predictive models improved significantly, with the error decreasing to approximately 10%. The models’ predictive accuracy was independent of the differing published survival predictions from time-fixed covariates in the six prognostic categories. We demonstrate the utility of the model in three hypothetical patients with unique patient, cancer, and treatment variables. The model predicted survival based on the patient’s individual time-fixed and time-varying features, which varied considerably from Social Security age-based, and stage and race-based breast cancer survival predictions. Conclusions: The predictive modeling of the survival of patients with early-stage breast cancer using DL models has a prediction error of around 30% when considering only time-fixed covariates at the time of diagnosis and decreases to values under 10% when time-varying covariates are added as input to the models, regardless of the prognostic category of the patient groups. These models can be used to predict individual patients’ survival probabilities based on their unique repertoire of time-fixed and time-varying features. They will provide guidance for patients and their caregivers to assist in decision making.

An emergency response process outlines the workflow of different activities that need to be performed in response to an emergency. Effective emergency response requires communication and coordination with the operational systems belonging to different collaborating organizations. Therefore, it is necessary to establish information sharing and system-level interoperability among the diverse operational systems. Unlike typical e-government processes that are well structured and have a well-defined outcome, emergency response processes are knowledge-centric and their workflow structure and execution may evolve as the incident unfolds. It is impractical to define static plans and response process workflows for every possible situation. Instead, a dynamic response should be adaptable to the changing situation. We present an integrated approach that facilitates the dynamic composition of an executable response process. The proposed approach employs ontology-based reasoning to determine the default actions and resource requirements for the given incident and to identify relevant response organizations based on their jurisdictional and mutual aid agreement rules. The Web service APIs of the identified response organizations are then used to generate an executable response process that evolves dynamically. The proposed approach is implemented and experimentally validated using an example scenario derived from the FEMA Hazardous Materials Tabletop Exercises Manual.

Despite lower incidence rates, African American (AA) patients have shorter survival from breast cancer (BC) than white (W) patients. Multiple factors contribute to decreased survival, including screening disparities, later presentation, and access to care. Disparities in adverse events (AEs) may contribute to delayed or incomplete treatment, earlier recurrence, and shortened survival. Here, we analyzed the SEER-Medicare dataset, which captures claims from a variety of venues, in order to determine whether the cancer care venues affect treatment and associated adverse events. We investigated a study population whose claims are included in the Outpatient files, consisting of hospital and healthcare facility venues, and a study population from the National Claims History (NCH) files, consisting of claims from physicians, office practices, and other non-institutional providers. We demonstrated statistically and substantively significant venue-specific differences in treatment rates, drugs administered, and AEs from treatments between AA and W patients. We showed that AA patients in the NCH dataset received lower rates of treatment, but patients in the Outpatient dataset received higher rates of treatment than W patients. The rates of recorded AEs per treatment were higher in the NCH setting than in the Outpatient setting in all patients. AEs were consistently higher in AA patients than in W patients. AA patients had higher comorbidity indices and were younger than W patients, but these variables did not appear to play roles in the AE differences. The frequency of specific anticancer drugs administered in cancer- and venue-specific circumstances and their associated AEs varied between AA and W patients. The higher AE rates were due to slightly higher frequencies in the administration of drugs with higher associated AE rates in AA patients than in W patients. Our investigations demonstrate significant differences in treatment rates and associated AEs between AA and W patients with BC, depending on the venues of care, likely contributing to differences in outcomes.