MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2991835787 · doi:10.1182/blood-2019-123450

A Prognostic Model Integrating PET-Derived Quantitative Parameters and Image Texture Analyses Using Radiomics in a Large Prospective Phase III Trial, GOYA

2019· article· en· W2991835787 sur OpenAlexaff
Lale Kostakoğlu, Paola Berchialla, F Dalmasso, Larry A. Pierce, Umberto Vitolo, Maurizio Martelli, Laurie H. Sehn, Marek Trněný, Tina Nielsen, Christopher R. Bolen, Deniz Şahin, Calvin Lee, Tarec Christoffer Christoffer El-Galaly, Federico Mattiello, Paul E. Kinahan, Stéphane Chauvie

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Établissements canadiensBC Cancer Agency
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineProportional hazards modelLogistic regressionProgression-free survivalOncologyNuclear medicineInternal medicineRadiologyOverall survival

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction: Our objective was to develop a prognostic model that predicts progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) to enable risk-adapted strategies in patients with previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). We retrospectively investigated the value of quantitative image texture features (i.e. 'radiomics' evaluating tumor heterogeneity) using FDG PET/CT data sets in a large, prospective Phase III trial, GOYA (NCT01287741). Methods: In the GOYA trial, which compared obinutuzumab versus rituximab both in combination with CHOP chemotherapy, there was no significant treatment effect between the two arms, thus the two arms were combined for this study. Baseline PET/CT images with regions of interests (ROIs) defined by qualified physicians were analyzed for radiomics features. Image texture features (ITF) were computed using the open-source and validated PET Oncology Radiomics Test Suite (PORTS). The clinical risk factors (International Prognostic Index [IPI], Ann Arbor stage, extranodal disease, bulky disease), cell of origin (COO), standard PET-derived metrics (standard uptake value [SUV]-mean, SUV-max, total metabolic tumor volume [TMTV], total lesion glycolysis [TLG]), SUV histogram metrics (variance, skewness, and kurtosis), and ITF were evaluated for prediction of PFS and OS. TMTV was estimated using adaptive thresholding. Prognostic models were generated by means of multivariate Cox regression analysis, modeling PFS, and OS. In the absence of an independent patient cohort for external model validation, an internal validation, based on c-index and Brier score, was carried out using bootstrap resampling methods. Stratification of patients into risk groups was achieved through maximally selected rank statistics. Multivariate analysis was also carried out on a subgroup of patients with available COO information. Results: The median follow-ups for PFS and OS were 46 and 50 months, respectively. Baseline PET scans were available for 1334 patients with detectable lesions, and 1077 baseline scans were evaluable for calculating ITFs. In the univariate analysis, high TMTV, histogram mean, histogram variance, and the ITFs gray-tone spatial dependence matrices (GTSDM) difference entropy and low gray-level zone length matrix (GLSZM) small zone high gray emphasis were risk factors for PFS, while high TMTV, histogram mean, and the ITF GTSDM inverse difference moment were risk factors for OS (Table 1, showing 95% CI, HR, and p-values for both univariate and multivariate analyses). In multivariate analysis, the risk factors included IPI, Ann Arbor stage, high TMTV, histogram mean, and GTSDM inverse difference moment; results were generally consistent in the multivariate subgroup analysis on patients with COO data available (Table 1). Based on the multivariate model, the probabilities for PFS and OS at 2 and 4 years for individual patients were established (Table 2). By combining TMTV (four categorical groups) with ITF, COO, and predictive clinical factors, three prognostic subgroups of treatment failure risk were identified: low (55% of patients), intermediate (34%), and high (11%). Hazard ratios for high and intermediate risk compared with low risk were 2.16 (p<0.001) and 1.17 (p=0.004) for PFS, and 3.82 (p<0.001) and 1.85 (p<0.001) for OS. The corresponding probability of survival at 2-years for high, intermediate and low risk groups were 87%, 82%, and 75% for PFS, and 94%, 90%, and 82% for OS. The 4-year survival probabilities were 83%, 77%, and 68% for PFS, and 91%, 86%, and 75% for OS (Table 2). For PFS, the accuracy of the Cox model was 0.63 with clinical variables only, 0.65 with the addition of TMTV, and 0.69 with the addition of ITFs; for OS, the corresponding values were 0.63, 0.65, and 0.70. Conclusion: A model including PET-derived quantitative ITF, in addition to significant clinical features, was able to predict survival probability for untreated DLBCL patients with good precision. The proposed PET-based prognostic model may help identify patients who could benefit from risk-adapted treatment modifications or novel approaches. Acknowledgments: GOYA was sponsored by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. Third-party editorial assistance, under the direction of Lale Kostakoglu, was provided by Katie Smith of Gardiner-Caldwell Communications and was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. Disclosures Kostakoglu: F. Hoffman-La Roche: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy. Dalmasso:I-See s.r.l.: Employment. Pierce:Precision Sensing LLC: Equity Ownership. Vitolo:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Juno Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Martelli:Servier: Honoraria; F. Hoffman-La Roche, Celgene, Janssen, Sandoz, Novartis, Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; F. Hoffman-La Roche, Celgene, Janssen, Sandoz, Novartis, Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Honoraria. Sehn:Janssen-Ortho: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Ortho: Honoraria. Trněný:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Nielsen:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment, Equity Ownership. Bolen:Genentech, Inc.: Employment; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Equity Ownership. Sahin:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment, Equity Ownership. Lee:Genentech: Employment; F. Hoffman-La Roche: Equity Ownership. El-Galaly:Roche: Employment, Other: Travel support; Takeda: Other: Travel support. Mattiello:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment. Kinahan:Co-founded PET/X LLC: Equity Ownership; Philips Medical: Research Funding; GE Healthcare: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy. Chauvie:International Agency on Atomic Energy (IAEA): Consultancy; Co-owner of Dixit srl (spin-off University of Torino): Equity Ownership; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding; Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Cuneo (CRC): Research Funding; Italian Foundation on Lymphoma (FIL): Research Funding; Italian Association for Cancer Research (AIRC): Research Funding; SIRTEX: Speakers Bureau.

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)0,007
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,005
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 enseignants0,007
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,039

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0070,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

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 Opus0,034
Tête enseignante GPT0,375
Écart entre enseignants0,341 · 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

Citations1
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingTravaux en français237 207