MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4322774167 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs22-p2-11-34

Abstract P2-11-34: Mitotic spindle hotspot counting using deep learning networks is highly associated with clinical outcomes in patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer who did not receive systemic therapy

2023· article· en· W4322774167 sur OpenAlexaff
Roberto A. Leon‐Ferre, Jodi M. Carter, David M. Zahrieh, Jason P. Sinnwell, Roberto Salgado, Vera J. Suman, David W. Hillman, Judy C. Boughey, Krishna R. Kalari, Fergus J. Couch, James N. Ingle, Maschenka Balkenkohl, Francesco Ciompi, Jeroen van der Laak, Matthew P. Goetz

Notice bibliographique

RevueCancer Research · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Alberta
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésTriple-negative breast cancerMedicineCohortOncologyBreast cancerInternal medicineHazard ratioStage (stratigraphy)Proportional hazards modelCancerBiology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Triple-negative breast cancers (TNBC) exhibit high rates of recurrence and mortality. However, recent studies suggest that a subset of patients (pts) with early-stage TNBC enriched in tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) have excellent clinical outcomes even in the absence of systemic therapy. Additional histological biomarkers that could identify pts for future systemic therapy escalation/de-escalation strategies are of great interest. TNBC are frequently highly proliferative with abundant mitoses. However, classic markers of proliferation (manual mitosis counting and Ki-67) appear to offer no prognostic value. Here, we evaluated the prognostic effects of automated mitotic spindle hotspot (AMSH) counting on RFS in independent cohorts of systemically untreated early-stage TNBC. Methods: AMSH counting was conducted with a state-of-the-art deep learning algorithm trained on the detection of mitoses within 2 mm2 areas with the highest mitotic density (i.e. hotspots) in digital H&E images. Details of the development, training and validation of the algorithm were published previously [1] in a cohort of unselected TNBC. We obtained AMSH counts in a centrally confirmed TNBC cohort from Mayo Clinic [2] and focused our analysis on pts who received locoregional therapy but no systemic therapy. Using a fractional polynomial analysis with a multivariable proportional hazards regression model, we confirmed the assumption of linearity in the log hazard for the continuous variable AMSH and evaluated whether AMSH counts were prognostic of RFS. We corroborated our findings in an independent cohort of systemically untreated TNBC pts from the Radboud University Medical Center in the Netherlands (Radboud Cohort). Results are reported at a median follow-up of 8.1 and 6.7 years for the Mayo and Netherlands cohorts, respectively. Results: Among 182 pts with who did not receive systemic therapy in the Mayo Cohort, 140 (77%) with available AMSH counts were included. The mean age was 61 (range: 31-94), 71% were postmenopausal, 67% had tumors ≤ 2cm, and 83% were node-negative. As expected, most tumors were Nottingham grade 3 (84%) and had a high Ki-67 proliferation index (54% with Ki-67 >30%). Most tumors (73%) had stromal TILs ≤ 30%. The median AMSH count was 18 (IQR: 8, 42). AMSH counts were linearly associated with grade and tumor size, with the proportion of pts with grade 3 tumors and size > 2 cm increasing as the AMSH counts increased (p=0.007 and p=0.059, respectively). In a multivariate model controlling for nodal status, tumor size, and stromal TILs, AMSH counts were independently associated with RFS (p< 0.0001). For every 10-point increase in the AMSH count, we observed a 17% increase in the risk of experiencing an RFS event (HR 1.17, 95% CI 1.08-1.26). We corroborated our findings in the Radboud Cohort (n=126). The mean age was 68 (range: 40-96), and 81% were node-negative. While the median AMSH count was 36 (IQR: 16-63), higher than in the Mayo Cohort (p=0.004), the prognostic impact was similar, with a significant association between AMSH count and RFS (p=0.028) in a multivariate model corrected for nodal status, tumor size, and stromal TILs. For every 10-point increase in the AMSH count in the Netherlands cohort, we observed a 9% increase in the risk of experiencing an RFS event (HR 1.09, 95% CI 1.01-1.17). RFS rates according to AMSH counts for both cohorts are shown in the Table. Conclusions: AMSH counting is a new proliferation biomarker that provides prognostic value independent of nodal status, tumor size, and stromal TILs in systemically untreated early-stage TNBC. Plans are underway to evaluate AMSH counts in additional cohorts of systemically untreated TNBC, and in other disease settings such as prior to neoadjuvant systemic therapy. If validated, this biomarker should be prospectively evaluated as a potential selection biomarker in clinical trials of systemic therapy de-escalation. References: 1. PMID: 29994086 2. PMID: 28913760 Table RFS according to AMSH counts in the Mayo and Radboud Cohorts Citation Format: Roberto A. Leon-Ferre, Jodi M. Carter, David Zahrieh, Jason P. Sinnwell, Roberto Salgado, Vera Suman, David Hillman, Judy C. Boughey, Krishna R. Kalari, Fergus J. Couch, James N. Ingle, Maschenka Balkenkohl, Francesco Ciompi, Jeroen van der Laak, Matthew P. Goetz. Mitotic spindle hotspot counting using deep learning networks is highly associated with clinical outcomes in patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer who did not receive systemic therapy [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-11-34.

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: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,002
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,007

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
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 Opus0,060
Tête enseignante GPT0,408
Écart entre enseignants0,348 · 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'étudeObservationnel
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

Citations0
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCancer Research→Même sujetRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging→Travaux en français237 207→