MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Development and validation of an AI-derived digital pathology-based biomarker to predict benefit of long-term androgen deprivation therapy with radiotherapy in men with localized high-risk prostate cancer across multiple phase III NRG/RTOG trials.

2023· article· en· W4379333134 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew J. Armstrong, Vinnie YT Liu, Ramprasaath R. Selvaraju, Emmalyn Chen, Jeffry Simko, Sandy DeVries, Oliver Sartor, Howard M. Sandler, Osama Mohamad, Andre Esteva, Phuoc T. Tran, Daniel E. Spratt, John H. Carson, Christopher A. Peters, Elizabeth Gore, Steve P. Lee, Jedidiah M. Monson, Joseph P. Rodgers, Felix Y. Feng, Paul L. Nguyen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsSaint John Regional Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerBiomarkerOncologyRadiation therapyAndrogen deprivation therapyInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialCumulative incidenceBiopsyCancerCohort

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5001 Background: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves survival and reduces risk of metastasis in men with high-risk localized prostate cancer (PC) receiving radiotherapy (RT). Predictive biomarkers are needed to guide ADT duration to maximize benefits and minimize risks. We sought to train and validate the first predictive biomarker for long-term (LT) vs short-term (ST) ADT using multiple phase III NRG Oncology randomized trials. Methods: Pre-treatment prostate biopsy slides were digitized from six phase III NRG/RTOG randomized trials of men receiving RT +/- ADT. The artificial intelligence (AI)-derived clinical and histopathological predictive biomarker was trained on RTOG 9408, 9413, 9902, 9910, and 0521 to predict differential benefit of LTADT on distant metastasis (DM). After the AI biomarker was locked, it was validated on RTOG 9202, which randomized men to RT + STADT (4 mo) vs LTADT (28 mo). The predictive utility of the AI biomarker was evaluated for the primary and secondary endpoints of DM and PC-specific mortality (PCSM), respectively, for ADT duration with Fine-Gray interaction models. Event rates were estimated by the cumulative incidence method. Deaths from other causes were treated as competing risks. Results: The AI-derived biomarker was trained on 2,641 men (median follow-up of 9.8 years, IQR [8.2, 11.5]) and validated on 1,192 men from RTOG 9202 (median follow-up of 17.2 years, IQR [9.1, 19.6]), where 80% had at least one high/very high (H/VH) risk feature (cT3-4, Gleason 8-10, PSA > 20, or primary Gleason pattern 5). Consistent with published results, LTADT significantly improved DM (subdistribution HR [sHR] 0.64, 95% CI 0.50-0.82, p < 0.001) in the validation cohort. The AI biomarker was prognostic for DM (sHR 2.35, 95% CI 1.72-3.19, p < 0.001). A significant biomarker-treatment interaction was observed (p = 0.04), in which AI-biomarker (+) men (n = 785, 66%) had reduced DM with LTADT (sHR 0.55, 95% CI 0.41-0.73, p < 0.001), but no benefit was observed (sHR 1.06, 95% CI 0.61-1.84, p = 0.84) for AI-biomarker (-) men (n = 407, 34%). The 10-year DM rate difference between RT + LTADT vs RT + STADT was 13% in AI-biomarker (+) men vs 2% in AI-biomarker (-) men. Similar trends were observed for PCSM outcomes. Risk classification (NCCN intermediate [n = 221, 43% (+)] vs other H/VH risk [n = 954, 71% (+)]) was prognostic but not predictive of LTADT benefit. Conclusions: We have successfully validated the first predictive biomarker of LTADT benefit with RT in localized high-risk PC using an AI-derived digital pathology-based platform in the phase III NRG/RTOG 9202 trial. The predictive AI biomarker identified 34% of men that could derive similar benefit with STADT, avoiding the side effects of prolonged ADT, and 43% of intermediate risk men who would benefit from LTADT.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.425
Threshold uncertainty score0.408

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.384 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207