MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4282916804 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2022-463

Abstract 463: Highly accurate machine learning assessment of immune-related pathologic response criteria (irPRC) scoring in patients with non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) treated with neoadjuvant anti-PD-1-based therapies

2022· article· en· W4282916804 on OpenAlexaff
Julie E. Stein, Vinay Pulim, Tricia R. Cottrell, Patrick M. Forde, Janis M. Taube

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNeoadjuvant therapyOncologyDigital pathologyInternal medicineRadiologyPathologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Pathological complete response (no residual viable tumor, RVT) and/or major pathologic response (≤10% RVT) are now primary or secondary endpoints for a large proportion of clinical trials studying neoadjuvant immunotherapeutic regimens. We previously developed a scoring system for assessing pathologic response after immunotherapy, termed irPRC (Cottrell et al. Ann Oncol 2018). By these criteria, %RVT is assessed by dividing RVT by the sum of the surface area on the slide composed of RVT + necrosis + regression bed– the latter feature is where the tumor used to be and is characterized by fibroinflammatory stroma that is distinct from tumoral stroma. We have previously reported high inter-observer reproducibility for pathologic response assessment following immunotherapy. However, these assessments involve performing evaluations that are currently outside the scope of routine surgical pathology training and may be time-consuming. To date, these assessments have primarily been performed by academic pathologists who have seen the largest number of these cases as a part of clinical trials. A machine learning (ML)-powered assessment of irPRC would allow for faster, standardized evaluation and expanded access to patients treated outside of large academic centers. We trained a supervised convolutional neural network to assess pathologic response using irPRC on n=92 H&E-stained slides from patients with advanced, resectable NSCLC treated with neoadjuvant anti-PD-1 +/- anti-CTLA-4 at a single institution. The ML algorithm was trained based on ground-truth manual annotations by pathologists on whole slide digital scans and tested using leave-one-out cross validation. Each of ~830,000 image tiles was classified into one of four classes: tumor, necrosis, immune-mediated regression, or background lung tissue. Receiver operating curves showed that the algorithm exhibited high accuracy for predicting the various tissue classes with an area under the curve of 0.95, 0.96, 0.90, and 0.90 for the four classes, respectively. %RVT was calculated by dividing the surface area of RVT by total tumor bed surface area (RVT + necrosis + regression). There was a strong positive correlation between the machine assessed RVT and the human assessed RVT at both the slide level and case level (aggregate %RVT based on surface area from all slides for a given patient), Pearson’s r=0.95 and r=0.99, respectively. Here, we demonstrate that a ML algorithm performs as well as an experienced pathologist assessment in scoring pathologic response. These findings will need to be validated in larger studies. Additionally, the association of pathologic response with longer term patient outcomes will be evaluated as survival data matures to determine whether pathologic response is a robust surrogate of survival. Citation Format: Julie E. Stein, Vinay Pulim, Tricia R. Cottrell, Patrick M. Forde, Janis M. Taube. Highly accurate machine learning assessment of immune-related pathologic response criteria (irPRC) scoring in patients with non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) treated with neoadjuvant anti-PD-1-based therapies [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr 463.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207