Survival prediction in triple-negative breast cancer: a Cox model with fairness assessment using ISO/IEC TR 24027:2021 in a MENA cohort

Abstract

Aim: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is an aggressive subtype with limited therapeutic options and poor survival outcomes. Prognostic models developed in Western cohorts rarely assess algorithmic fairness. This study aimed to develop and internally validate a clinically interpretable Cox survival model for TNBC using baseline diagnostic variables and to evaluate its fairness according to ISO/IEC TR 24027:2021 guidelines in a Middle East and North Africa (MENA) cohort.

Methods: A total of 138 TNBC patients were included after merging two institutional datasets and removing variables with > 25% missingness. Baseline features comprised age, tumor size, lymph node involvement, tumor grade, Ki-67, type of surgery, metastasis at diagnosis, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. A Cox proportional hazards (CoxPH) model with six clinically established predictors was fitted to reduce overfitting. Model performance was assessed through five-fold stratified cross-validation using Harrell’s concordance index (C-index), receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (AUROC), and calibration curves. Fairness was evaluated using demographic parity, equality of opportunity, predictive equality, and equalized odds metrics following ISO/IEC TR 24027:2021.

Results: During follow-up, 34 patients (24.6%) died. Metastasis at diagnosis, high tumor grade, and radical mastectomy were significantly associated with mortality. The CoxPH model achieved a C-index of 0.80 [SE = 0.04; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.72–0.87] and an AUROC of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.72–0.90). Calibration plots showed strong agreement between predicted and observed survival probabilities, with a modest overall bias of –8.8%. Fairness assessment revealed small but notable disparities in false-positive rates across age groups and surgical categories, while lymph node status and other variables showed no significant bias.

Conclusions: This study presents a robust and fairness-aware survival prediction model for TNBC using routinely available clinical features. The model demonstrates strong discrimination, good calibration, and quantifiable fairness across patient subgroups, offering a clinically interpretable and ethically aligned tool to support TNBC risk stratification and decision-making in the MENA region.

Keywords

triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) / survival prediction / Cox proportional hazards model / fairness in AI / ISO/IEC TR 24027:2021 / clinical decision support

References

[1] Breast cancer [Internet]. WHO; c2026 [cited 2025 Dec 20]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/breast-cancer

[2] Perou CM. Molecular stratification of triple-negative breast cancers. Oncologist. 2011; 16 Suppl 1: 61-70.

[3] O’Toole SA, Beith JM, Millar EK, West R, McLean A, Cazet A, et al. Therapeutic targets in triple negative breast cancer. J Clin Pathol. 2013; 66: 530-42.

[4] The Global Breast Cancer Initiative: Empowering women, building capacity, providing care for all [Internet]. WHO; c2026 [cited 2025 Dec 20]. Available from: https://www.who.int/initiatives/global-breast-cancer-initiative

[5] Zarean Shahraki S, Azizmohammad Looha M, Mohammadi Kazaj P, Aria M, Akbari A, Emami H, et al. Time-related survival prediction in molecular subtypes of breast cancer using time-to-event deep-learning-based models. Front Oncol. 2023; 13: 1147604.

[6] Zhou HL, Chen DD. Prognosis of Patients With Triple-negative Breast Cancer: A Population-based Study From SEER Database. Clin Breast Cancer. 2023; 23: e85-94.

[7] Meng X, Cai Y, Chang X, Guo Y. A novel conditional survival nomogram for monitoring real-time prognosis of non-metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2023; 14: 1119105.

[8] Chen MS, Liu PC, Yi JZ, Xu L, He T, Wu H, et al. Development and validation of nomograms for predicting survival in patients with de novo metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. Sci Rep. 2022; 12: 14659.

[9] Sheng DL, Shen XG, Shi ZT, Chang C, Li JW. Survival outcome assessment for triple-negative breast cancer: a nomogram analysis based on integrated clinicopathological, sonographic, and mammographic characteristics. Eur Radiol. 2022; 32: 6575-87.

[10] Huang K, Zhang J, Yu Y, Lin Y, Song C. The impact of chemotherapy and survival prediction by machine learning in early Elderly Triple Negative Breast Cancer (eTNBC): a population based study from the SEER database. BMC Geriatr. 2022; 22: 268.

[11] Haiderali A, Rhodes WC, Gautam S, Huang M, Sieluk J, Skinner KE, et al. Real-world treatment patterns and effectiveness outcomes in patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer. Future Oncol. 2021; 17: 3819-31.

[12] Cui X, Song D, Li X. Construction and Validation of Nomograms Predicting Survival in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Patients of Childbearing Age. Front Oncol. 2021; 10: 636549.

[13] Shi H, Wang XH, Gu JW, Guo GL. Development and Validation of Nomograms for Predicting the Prognosis of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Patients Based on 379 Chinese Patients. Cancer Manag Res. 2019; 11: 10827-39.

[14] Yang Y, Wang Y, Deng H, Tan C, Li Q, He Z, et al. Development and validation of nomograms predicting survival in Chinese patients with triple negative breast cancer. BMC Cancer. 2019; 19: 541.

[15] Guo LW, Jiang LM, Gong Y, Zhang HH, Li XG, He M, et al. Development and validation of nomograms for predicting overall and breast cancer-specific survival among patients with triple-negative breast cancer. Cancer Manag Res. 2018; 10: 5881-94.

[16] Lin Y, Fu F, Lin S, Qiu W, Zhou W, Lv J, et al. A nomogram prediction for the survival of patients with triple negative breast cancer. Oncotarget. 2018; 9: 32108-18.

[17] Rahujo A, Atif D, Inam SA, Khan AA, Ullah S. A survey on the applications of transfer learning to enhance the performance of large language models in healthcare systems. Discov Artif Intell. 2025; 5: 90.

[18] Inam SA. A review of artificial intelligence for predicting climate driven infectious disease outbreaks to enhance global health resilience. Discov Public Health. 2025; 22: 738.

[19] Cox DR. Regression models and life-tables. J R Stat Soc: B (Methodol). 1972; 34: 187-202.

[20] Therneau TM, Grambsch PM. Modeling Survival Data: Extending the Cox Model. New York, NY: Springer; 2000.

[21] Harrell FE Jr, Califf RM, Pryor DB, Lee KL, Rosati RA. Evaluating the Yield of Medical Tests. JAMA. 1982; 247: 2543-6.

[22] Heagerty PJ, Lumley T, Pepe MS. Time-dependent ROC curves for censored survival data and a diagnostic marker. Biometrics. 2000; 56: 337-44.

[23] Fawcett T. ROC Graphs: Notes and Practical Considerations for Researchers. Mach Learn. 2004; 31: 1-38.

[24] Mason SJ, Graham NE. Areas beneath the relative operating characteristics (ROC) and relative operating levels (ROL) curves: Statistical significance and interpretation. Q J R Meteorol Soc. 2002; 128: 2145-66.

[25] DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988; 44: 837-45.

[26] Blanche P, Dartigues JF, Jacqmin-Gadda H. Estimating and comparing time-dependent areas under receiver operating characteristic curves for censored event times with competing risks. Stat Med. 2013; 32: 5381-97.

[27] Graf E, Schmoor C, Sauerbrei W, Schumacher M. Assessment and comparison of prognostic classification schemes for survival data. Stat Med. 1999; 18: 2529-45.

[28] MedCalc - Easy-to-use statistical software [Internet]. MedCalc Software Ltd; c2026 [cited 2025 Dec 20]. Available from: https://www.medcalc.org/en/

[29] Muschelli J. ROC and AUC with a Binary Predictor: a Potentially Misleading Metric. J Classif. 2020; 37: 696-708.

[30] Harrell FE Jr, Lee KL, Mark DB. Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med. 1996; 15: 361-87.

[31] rms: Regression Modeling Strategies [Internet]. [cited 2025 Dec 20]. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/rms/index.html

[32] Therneau TM, Grambsch PM. Modeling Survival Data: Extending the Cox Model. New York: Springer. 2000.

[33] Arvandi S, Razmjoo S, Zaheri Abdevand P. Risk factors and survival of triple-negative breast cancer among breast cancer patients: Ten-year cross-sectional study in the southwestern Iranian population. Health Sci Rep. 2023; 6: e1767.

[34] Mirzania M, Safaee SR, Shahi F, Jahanzad I, Zahedi G, Mehdizadeh R. Treatment Outcomes and Clinicopathologic Characteristics of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: A Report from Cancer Institute of Iran. Int J Hematol Oncol Stem Cell Res. 2017; 11: 37-42.

[35] Swets JA. Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science. 1988; 240: 1285-93.

[36] Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology. 1982; 143: 29-36.

[37] ISO/IEC TR 24027: 2021 Information technology - Artificial intelligence (AI) - Bias in AI systems and AI aided decision making. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO; 2021.

[38] Hardt M, Price E, Srebro N. Equality of opportunity in supervised learning. In: NIPS’16: Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. Barcelona, Spain: Curran Associates Inc.; 2016. pp. 3323-31.

[39] IBM SPSS Statistics [Internet]. [cited 2025 Dec 20]. Available from: https://www.ibm.com/products/spss-statistics

[40] Grambsch PM, Therneau TM. Proportional hazards tests and diagnostics based on weighted residuals. Biometrika. 1994; 81: 515-26.

[41] R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Internet]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing; c1999-2026 [cited 2025 Dec 20]. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-release/fullrefman.pdf

[42] Hsu H, Lee KH, Karmakar R, Mukundan A, Attar RS, Liu PH, et al. From Innovation to Application: Can Emerging Imaging Techniques Transform Breast Cancer Diagnosis? Diagnostics. 2025; 15: 2718.

[43] Leung JH, Karmakar R, Mukundan A, Thongsit P, Chen MM, Chang WY, et al. Systematic Meta-Analysis of Computer-Aided Detection of Breast Cancer Using Hyperspectral Imaging. Bioengineering. 2024; 11: 1060.