Lymphocyte density determined by computational pathology validated as a predictor of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: secondary analysis of the ARTemis trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We have previously shown lymphocyte density, measured using computational pathology, is associated with pathological complete response (pCR) in breast cancer. The clinical validity of this finding in independent studies, among patients receiving different chemotherapy, is unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The ARTemis trial randomly assigned 800 women with early stage breast cancer between May 2009 and January 2013 to three cycles of docetaxel, followed by three cycles of fluorouracil, epirubicin and cyclophosphamide once every 21 days with or without four cycles of bevacizumab. The primary endpoint was pCR (absence of invasive cancer in the breast and lymph nodes). We quantified lymphocyte density within haematoxylin and eosin (H&E) whole slide images using our previously described computational pathology approach: for every detected lymphocyte the average distance to the nearest 50 lymphocytes was calculated and the density derived from this statistic. We analyzed both pre-treatment biopsies and post-treatment surgical samples of the tumour bed. RESULTS: Of the 781 patients originally included in the primary endpoint analysis of the trial, 609 (78%) were included for baseline lymphocyte density analyses and a subset of 383 (49% of 781) for analyses of change in lymphocyte density. The main reason for loss of patients was the availability of digitized whole slide images. Pre-treatment lymphocyte density modelled as a continuous variable was associated with pCR on univariate analysis (odds ratio [OR], 2.92; 95% CI, 1.78-4.85; P < 0.001) and after adjustment for clinical covariates (OR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.24-3.67; P = 0.006). Increased pre- to post-treatment lymphocyte density showed an independent inverse association with pCR (adjusted OR, 0.1; 95% CI, 0.033-0.31; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Lymphocyte density in pre-treatment biopsies was validated as an independent predictor of pCR in breast cancer. Computational pathology is emerging as a viable and objective means of identifying predictive biomarkers for cancer patients. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT01093235.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".