MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2984521104 · doi:10.1182/blood-2019-126745

Prediction of High-Risk Group of Primary Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) Patients Using a CT-Based Radiomics Model with Machine Learning

2019· article· en· W2984521104 sur OpenAlexaff
Raoul Santiago, Johanna Ortiz Jiménez, Reza Forghani, Nikesh Muthukrishnan, Olivier Del Corpo, Shairabi Karthigesu, Muhammad Yahya Haider, Caroline Reinhold, Sarit Assouline

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensInstitut universitaire en santé mentale de MontréalRoyal Victoria HospitalMcGill University Health CentreRoyal Victoria Regional Health CentreMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaRituximabRegimenVincristineInternal medicineChemotherapy regimenUnivariate analysisCHOPRefractory (planetary science)LymphomaSurgeryCyclophosphamideOncologyChemotherapyMultivariate analysis

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction Approximately 15% of diffuse large B-cell lymphomas (DLBCL) do not respond to R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone) or equivalent regimen. These primary refractory cases (prDLBCL) have a particularly poor survival. There are currently no reliable biomarkers to a priori identify prDLBCL patients and include them in clinical trials, while avoiding needless toxicity from predictably ineffective therapy. In this study, we evaluated the potential for radiomic analysis with machine learning for predicting prDLBCL. Method This study included adult patients with prDLBCL from a single institution from 2009 to 2018, who had first-line treatment with an R-CHOP like regimen, had never received systemic treatment for indolent lymphoma, and who had a CT scan at the time of diagnosis. Refractory (R) patients were defined by progression of disease (PD) after completion of at least one cycle, or failure to achieve a complete response (CR) after at least 4 cycles, as per Lugano criteria (Cheson, JCO 2014). Non-refractory (NR) patients were matched 1:1 on sex and R-IPI for the comparison group. Enlarged lymph nodes (≥1.5 cm in greatest diameter) were eligible for evaluation. The 6 largest nodes were selected at each node site (abdomen, chest, axilla and neck) and for each node category (refractory node (RN), partial response (PR) and CR, as per Lugano criteria). 3D Slicer software was used for the delineation of the region of interest (ROI) either for subsequent 2D analysis (largest axial section) or 3D analysis (total node volume). Each node was manually contoured by two independent readers and also was reviewed by an experienced senior oncologic radiologist. A total of 788 and 1218 features were extracted from 2D and 3D regions of interest, respectively, using Pyradiomics open source software. Two independent machine learning approaches, Random Forests (RF) and Support Vector Machine (SVM), were tested for constructing the prediction models. 70% of cases were randomly assigned to the training set and 30% to the independent testing set. In the node model (NM) each independent node's response to treatment was predicted. In the patient model (PM), groups of nodes per site (abdomen, chest, axilla and neck) were used to predict the overall patient response. Results A total of 26 refractory patients were identified with a total 149 nodes (RN=55, PR=20, CR=74) and matched to 26 NR patients for comparison, with a total of 105 CR nodes. Seventeen nodes with significant artifact were excluded from the analysis (7 from NR patients and 10 from R patients). RF had consistently superior performance compared to SVM and was used for constructing the final prediction models. Furthermore, 2D radiomic analysis had superior performance compared to 3D radiomic analysis. In the independent testing (prediction) set, the mean accuracy between the 2 readers for this model for distinguishing a R from NR patient was 80% (mean sensitivity and specificity, 73% and 88%, respectively). This model was able to predict a R patient (positive predictive value (PPV)) in 100% and 71% of the case, respectively for readers 1 and 2. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was 0.96 and 0.81 for reader 1 and 2, respectively (Figure 1A). For performance of the radiomic model for distinguishing individual refractory from responsive nodes, the independent testing set had a mean accuracy of 75% (mean sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 80%, 69%, 78%, and 71% respectively). The AUC per reader were 0.82 and 0.85 (Figure 1B). Conclusion We demonstrate that the use of CT radiomic analysis with machine learning for identifying a priori primary refractory DLBCL patients is feasible. These models provide a relatively high prediction accuracy, which currently cannot be done in the clinical setting based on standard, largely qualitative, imaging characteristics. The main limitations of our study include small patient numbers in this pilot study and exclusion of extranodal sites. The next step for this project would be to evaluate this approach in a larger cohort that includes a second independent institution. CT-based radiomics is promising and should be further explored to achieve this unmet need for predicting prDLBCL prior to therapy initiation. Disclosures Forghani: GE Healthcare: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; 4Intel Inc: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Founder. Reinhold:FRQS: Other: FRQS Grant. Assouline:Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Simulation ou modélisation · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,005
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,010

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,009
Tête enseignante GPT0,190
Écart entre enseignants0,181 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSimulation ou modélisation
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment→Travaux en français237 207→