MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record 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 on OpenAlexaff
Raoul Santiago, Johanna Ortiz Jiménez, Reza Forghani, Nikesh Muthukrishnan, Olivier Del Corpo, Shairabi Karthigesu, Muhammad Yahya Haider, Caroline Reinhold, Sarit Assouline

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsInstitut universitaire en santé mentale de MontréalRoyal Victoria HospitalMcGill University Health CentreRoyal Victoria Regional Health CentreMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaRituximabRegimenVincristineInternal medicineChemotherapy regimenUnivariate analysisCHOPRefractory (planetary science)LymphomaSurgeryCyclophosphamideOncologyChemotherapyMultivariate analysis

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.181 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→