MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Development of an improved risk stratification scheme for stage II and III colorectal cancers through incorporation of the digital pathology biomarker QuantCRC.

2024· article· en· W4391095388 on OpenAlexaff
Rish K. Pai, Christina Wu, Heidi Kosiorek, Imon Banerjee, Catherine E. Hagen, Christopher Hartley, Rondell P. Graham, Bassam Bassam Sonbol, Tanios Bekaii‐Saab, Hao Xie, Frank A. Sinicrope, Bhavik N. Patel, Thomas Westerling, Sameer Shivji, James Conner, Carol J. Swallow, Paul D. Savage, David P. Cyr, Richard Kirsch, Reetesh K. Pai

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioInternal medicineRisk stratificationOncologyStage (stratigraphy)BiomarkerCohortColorectal cancerLog-rank testProportional hazards modelCancerConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

162 Background: There is a need to improve current risk stratification of stage II and III colorectal cancer (CRC) to better inform risk of recurrence and guide adjuvant chemotherapy. The purpose of this study is to examine whether integration of QuantCRC, an AI-based digital pathology biomarker utilizing hematoxylin and eosin-stained slides, provides improved risk stratification over current American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines. Methods: ASCO and QuantCRC-integrated risk schemes were applied to an observational cohort of 1,068 stage II and III CRCs. The stage II integrated scheme utilizes pT3 vs. pT4 and QuantCRC-derived risk groups. The stage III integrated scheme utilizes pT1-3 vs. pT4, pN1 vs. pN2, and QuantCRC-derived risk groups. Performance metrics included log-rank test, hazard ratios and Somers’ Dxy rank correlation. Results: Integration of QuantCRC provides improved risk stratification compared to the ASCO scheme for stage II and III CRC. The QuantCRC-integrated scheme placed more stage II tumors in the low-risk group compared to the ASCO scheme (69.3% vs. 60.4%) without decreased 3-year RFS. The QuantCRC-integrated scheme provided larger hazard ratios (HR) for both intermediate-risk (3.04, 95%CI 1.81-5.10, P=2.8x10 -5 ) and high-risk (4.62, 95%CI 2.02-10.61, P=0.0003) groups compared to ASCO intermediate-risk (2.09, 95%CI 1.21-3.63, P=0.008) and high-risk (3.08, 95%CI 1.57-6.01, P=0.001) groups. The QuantCRC-integrated scheme for stage III tumors identified a small group of 80/518 (15.4%) CRCs at very high risk of recurrence with HR of 4.08 (95%CI 2.68-6.23, P=6.5x10 -11 ) compared to a HR of 2.42 (95%CI 1.72-3.38, P=3.1x10 -7 ) for 228/518 (44.0%) high-risk CRCs in the ASCO scheme. QuantCRC-integrated risk groups remained prognostic in stage III CRCs when stratified by presence or absence of any adjuvant chemotherapy. No difference in RFS were seen in QuantCRC-integrated low-risk and intermediate-risk stage III CRCs stratified by 3 vs. 6-months of oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy suggesting that these two groups can be treated with 3-months of adjuvant therapy. Conclusions: Incorporation of QuantCRC into risk stratification provides a powerful predictor of RFS that has potential to guide subsequent treatment and surveillance.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.887
Threshold uncertainty score0.398

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.370 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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