MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4393084988 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2024-3510

Abstract 3510: A radiogenomic approach for triple-negative breast cancer risk stratification

2024· article· en· W4393084988 on OpenAlexaff
Humaira Noor, Yuanning Zheng, A. Mantz, Ryle Zhou, Andrew Kozlov, Wendy B. DeMartini, Shu-Tian Chen, Satoko Okamoto, Debra M. Ikeda, Sarah A. Mattonen, Sandy Napel, Melinda L. Telli, George W. Sledge, Allison W. Kurian, Mina Satoyoshi, Olivier Gevaert, Haruka Itakura

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerRisk stratificationCancerInternal medicineOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is an aggressive disease that accounts for 15-20% of all breast cancers. Expressions of ER, PR and HER2 receptors are lacking in this disease, and thus targeted therapies are not effective. TNBC has a shorter relapse-free survival, higher metastasis rate and decreased overall survival compared with other breast cancers. However, when undergoing standard treatment, some patients respond well, while others have poor outcome, suggesting TNBC heterogeneity. Early stratification of patients with long versus short survival could identify the subgroup of patients who would not benefit from exposure to toxicity of chemotherapy treatment. Here, we developed a non-invasive radiogenomic approach for TNBC risk stratification. Methods: A transcriptomic-based prognostic gene signature was previously developed using the TCGA-BRCA cohort (n=860). Briefly, LASSO Cox regression model analysis with the ‘glmnet’ R package was used to identify the transcriptomic signature gene-set consisting of 50 genes. We tested this signature to prognosticate overall survival in a Stanford cohort (n=63) and a previously published SCANB cohort (n=604). The patients were stratified into high- and low-risk groups based on the median risk-score. Next, we developed a machine learning model that identified a radiomic feature set to predict the prognostic transcriptomic risk-groups. Radiomic features were extracted from pre-treatment breast MRI. Radiomics features were extracted using PyRadiomics. The model utilized Decision Tree Classifier and LeaveOneOut method was used for cross-validation. Results: The transcriptomic signature low-risk group was significantly associated with improved overall survival in the two TNBC cohorts, with hazard ratios of 0.11 [95% CI: 0.01-0.88] for the Stanford cohort and 0.71 [95% CI: 0.52-0.97] for the SCANB cohort (log-rank p-values p=0.012 and p=0.032, respectively). Including this transcriptomic signature in a multivariate analysis, which adjusted for clinical features (patient age, grade, stage and Ki67%), the transcriptomic prognostic signature remained a significant prognostic factor (p<0.05). The radiomic feature set (consisting of 20 features) predicted the high- and low-risk transcriptomic groups with a mean accuracy of 72.2% and a mean AUROC of 71%. The precision, F1 and recall scores were 67%, 74% and 82%, respectively. In an independent dataset consisting of 116 Stanford TNBC patients, we used this model to predict risk groups based on the MRI radiomics features, and evaluated the prognostic effects of predicted risk groups. The overall survival of the predicted high-risk group was significantly poorer than the predicted low-risk group (p=0.013). Conclusions: We present a prognostic model that can non-invasively stratify TNBC patients for low versus high mortality risk using radiomic features derived from pre-treatment patient MRI data. Citation Format: Humaira Noor, Yuanning Zheng, Adam Mantz, Ryle Zhou, Andrew Kozlov, Wendy B. DeMartini, Shu-tian Chen, Satoko Okamoto, Debra Ikeda, Sarah Mattonen, Sandy Napel, Melinda L. Telli, George Sledge, Allison Kurian, Mina Satoyoshi, Olivier Gevaert, Haruka Itakura. A radiogenomic approach for triple-negative breast cancer risk stratification [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(6_Suppl):Abstract nr 3510.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.369 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging→French-language works237,207→