| Literature DB >> 33194320 |
Ke Zhao1,2, Zhenhui Li3, Yong Li4, Su Yao5, Yanqi Huang1, Yingyi Wang6, Fang Zhang7, Lin Wu8, Xin Chen9, Changhong Liang1, Zaiyi Liu1.
Abstract
Computerized image analysis for whole-slide images has been shown to improve efficiency, accuracy, and consistency in histopathology evaluations. We aimed to assess whether immunohistochemistry (IHC) image quantitative features can reflect the immune status and provide prognostic information for colorectal cancer patients. A fully automated pipeline was designed to extract histogram features from IHC digital images in a training set (N = 243). A Hist-Immune signature was generated with selected features using the LASSO Cox model. The results were validated using internal (N = 147) and external (N = 76) validation sets. The five-feature-based Hist-Immune signature was significantly associated with overall survival in training (HR 2.72, 95% CI 1.68-4.41, P < .001), internal (2.86, 1.28-6.39, 0.010), and external (2.30, 1.02-6.16, 0.044) validation sets. The full model constructed by integrating the Hist-Immune signature and clinicopathological factors had good discrimination ability (C-index 0.727, 95% CI 0.678-0.776), confirmed using internal (0.703, 0.621-0.784) and external (0.756, 0.653-0.859) validation sets. Our findings indicate that the Hist-Immune signature constructed based on the quantitative features could reflect the immune status of patients with colorectal cancer, which might advocate change in risk stratification and consequent precision medicine.Entities:
Keywords: Whole-slide image; colorectal cancer; immunohistochemistry; overall survival; quantitation
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33194320 PMCID: PMC7605350 DOI: 10.1080/2162402X.2020.1841935
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncoimmunology ISSN: 2162-4011 Impact factor: 8.110
Figure 1.The pipeline for fully automated image processing and model development. (a) Fully automated image processing method to obtain the DAB channel with the region of interest. (b) Feature extraction, including 1st to 10th histogram and quantile distribution features. (c) The LASSO Cox method for feature selection. (d) Model development and survival analysis
Figure 2.Kaplan-Meier estimates of overall survival according to Hist-Immune signature in the (a) training, (b) internal validation, and (c) external validation sets
The five-year overall survival rate in high-risk and low-risk groups of Hist-Immune signature
| Training set | Internal validation set | External validation set | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High-risk | Low-risk | High-risk | Low-risk | High-risk | Low-risk | |
| 140 (28.1%) | 359 (71.9%) | 42 (28.6%) | 105 (71.4%) | 60 (78.9%) | 16 (21.1%) | |
| Median (IQR) | 74 (35–89) | 80 (72–101) | 59 (27–64) | 63 (60–67) | 56 (50–66) | 74 (58–75) |
| At 1 year | 98 (89.9%) | 126 (94.0%) | 39 (92.9%) | 63 (98.1%) | 57 (95.0%) | 16 (100%) |
| At 3 year | 80 (73.4%) | 115 (85.8%) | 27 (64.3%) | 94 (89.5%) | 52 (86.7%) | 16 (100%) |
| At 5 year | 68 (62.4%) | 109 (81.3%) | 25 (59.5%) | 87 (82.9%) | 44 (73.3%) | 16 (100%) |
Abbreviations: OS, overall survival; IQR, interquartile range.
Unadjusted and multivariate analyses for overall survival
| Training set | Internal validation set | External validation set | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95% CI | P | HR | 95% CI | P | HR | 95% CI | P | |
| Hist-Immune signature | 2.72 | 1.68–4.41 | <0.001 | 2.86 | 1.28–6.39 | 0.010 | 2.30 | 1.02–5.16 | 0.044 |
| Hist-Immune signature | 2.56 | 1.59–4.14 | <0.001 | 3.41 | 1.47–7.89 | 0.004 | 2.35 | 1.02–5.43 | 0.045 |
| TNM stage | |||||||||
| I | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| II | 4.77 | 0.63–35.9 | 0.129 | 2.74 | 0.60–12.5 | 0.193 | 1 | ||
| III | 14.6 | 2.02–105 | 0.008 | 6.96 | 1.61–30.1 | 0.009 | 4.04 | 1.12–14.6 | 0.033 |
| Age | 1.03 | 1.01–1.05 | 0.004 | 1.03 | 1.01–1.05 | 0.004 | 1.01 | 0.97 − 1.05 | 0.582 |
Abbreviations: HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval.
Discrimination ability of models in the training, internal, and external validation sets
| C-index (95% CI) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Training set | Internal validation set | External validation set | |
| 0.694 (0.644–0.744) | 0.682 (0.598–0.765) | 0.705 (0.595–0.814) | |
| 0.727 (0.678–0.776) | 0.703 (0.621–0.784) | 0.756 (0.653–0.859) | |
Note: Clinical model: TNM stage + age; Full model: TNM stage + age + Hist-Immune signature.
Abbreviations: TNM, tumor-node-metastasis; CI, confidence interval.
Figure 3.Time-dependent ROC and AUC curves of models in the (a) training, (b) internal validation, and (c) external validation sets. Time-dependent ROC curves were evaluated for 5-year overall survival, and time-dependent AUC curves were plotted for 12 to 60 months