Victoire Roblot1, Yann Giret2, Sarah Mezghani3, Edouard Auclin4, Armelle Arnoux5, Stéphane Oudard4, Loïc Duron3,6, Laure Fournier3. 1. Department of Radiology, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, AP-HP, Université de Paris, PARCC UMRS 970, INSERM, 20 Rue Leblanc, 75015, Paris, France. victoire.roblot@hotmail.fr. 2. Foodvisor, Paris, France. 3. Department of Radiology, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, AP-HP, Université de Paris, PARCC UMRS 970, INSERM, 20 Rue Leblanc, 75015, Paris, France. 4. Department of Medical Oncology, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, AP-HP, Université de Paris, INSERM CIC1418-EC Clinical Epidemiology Team, Paris, France. 5. Informatics and Clinical Research Unit, Department of Biostatistics, Hôpital européen Georges Pompidou, AP-HP, Université de Paris, INSERM CIC1418-EC Clinical Epidemiology Team, Paris, France. 6. Department of Radiology, Fondation Ophtalmologique Adolphe de Rothschild, Paris, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To validate a deep learning (DL) algorithm for measurement of skeletal muscular index (SMI) and prediction of overall survival in oncology populations. METHODS: A retrospective single-center observational study included patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma between 2007 and 2019. A set of 37 patients was used for technical validation of the algorithm, comparing manual vs DL-based evaluations. Segmentations were compared using mean Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), SMI using concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) and Bland-Altman plots. Overall survivals (OS) were compared using log-rank (Kaplan-Meier) and Mann-Whitney tests. Generalizability of the prognostic value was tested in an independent validation population (N = 87). RESULTS: Differences between two manual segmentations (DSC = 0.91, CCC = 0.98 for areas) or manual vs. automated segmentation (DSC = 0.90, CCC = 0.98 for areas, CCC = 0.97 for SMI) had the same order of magnitude. Bland-Altman plots showed a mean difference of -3.33 cm2 [95%CI: -15.98, 9.1] between two manual segmentations, and -3.28 cm2 [95% CI: -14.77, 8.21] for manual vs. automated segmentations. With each method, 20/37 (56%) patients were classified as sarcopenic. Sarcopenic vs. non-sarcopenic groups had statistically different survival curves with median OS of 6.0 vs. 12.5 (p = 0.008) and 6.0 vs. 13.9 (p = 0.014) months respectively for manual and DL methods. In the independent validation population, sarcopenic patients according to DL had a lower OS (10.7 vs. 17.3 months, p = 0.033). CONCLUSION: A DL algorithm allowed accurate estimation of SMI compared to manual reference standard. The DL-calculated SMI demonstrated a prognostic value in terms of OS. KEY POINTS: • A deep learning algorithm allows accurate estimation of skeletal muscle index compared to a manual reference standard with a concordance correlation coefficient of 0.97. • Sarcopenic patients according to SMI thresholds after segmentation by the deep learning algorithm had statistically significantly lower overall survival compared to non-sarcopenic patients.
OBJECTIVES: To validate a deep learning (DL) algorithm for measurement of skeletal muscular index (SMI) and prediction of overall survival in oncology populations. METHODS: A retrospective single-center observational study included patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma between 2007 and 2019. A set of 37 patients was used for technical validation of the algorithm, comparing manual vs DL-based evaluations. Segmentations were compared using mean Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), SMI using concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) and Bland-Altman plots. Overall survivals (OS) were compared using log-rank (Kaplan-Meier) and Mann-Whitney tests. Generalizability of the prognostic value was tested in an independent validation population (N = 87). RESULTS: Differences between two manual segmentations (DSC = 0.91, CCC = 0.98 for areas) or manual vs. automated segmentation (DSC = 0.90, CCC = 0.98 for areas, CCC = 0.97 for SMI) had the same order of magnitude. Bland-Altman plots showed a mean difference of -3.33 cm2 [95%CI: -15.98, 9.1] between two manual segmentations, and -3.28 cm2 [95% CI: -14.77, 8.21] for manual vs. automated segmentations. With each method, 20/37 (56%) patients were classified as sarcopenic. Sarcopenic vs. non-sarcopenic groups had statistically different survival curves with median OS of 6.0 vs. 12.5 (p = 0.008) and 6.0 vs. 13.9 (p = 0.014) months respectively for manual and DL methods. In the independent validation population, sarcopenic patients according to DL had a lower OS (10.7 vs. 17.3 months, p = 0.033). CONCLUSION: A DL algorithm allowed accurate estimation of SMI compared to manual reference standard. The DL-calculated SMI demonstrated a prognostic value in terms of OS. KEY POINTS: • A deep learning algorithm allows accurate estimation of skeletal muscle index compared to a manual reference standard with a concordance correlation coefficient of 0.97. • Sarcopenic patients according to SMI thresholds after segmentation by the deep learning algorithm had statistically significantly lower overall survival compared to non-sarcopenic patients.
Authors: Maysam Shahedi; Derek W Cool; Cesare Romagnoli; Glenn S Bauman; Matthew Bastian-Jordan; Eli Gibson; George Rodrigues; Belal Ahmad; Michael Lock; Aaron Fenster; Aaron D Ward Journal: Med Phys Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: N Lassau; I Bousaid; E Chouzenoux; J P Lamarque; B Charmettant; M Azoulay; F Cotton; A Khalil; O Lucidarme; F Pigneur; Y Benaceur; A Sadate; M Lederlin; F Laurent; G Chassagnon; O Ernst; G Ferreti; Y Diascorn; P Y Brillet; M Creze; L Cassagnes; C Caramella; A Loubet; A Dallongeville; N Abassebay; M Ohana; N Banaste; M Cadi; J Behr; L Boussel; L Fournier; M Zins; J P Beregi; A Luciani; A Cotten; J F Meder Journal: Diagn Interv Imaging Date: 2020-03-31 Impact factor: 4.026
Authors: Kenneth Fearon; Florian Strasser; Stefan D Anker; Ingvar Bosaeus; Eduardo Bruera; Robin L Fainsinger; Aminah Jatoi; Charles Loprinzi; Neil MacDonald; Giovanni Mantovani; Mellar Davis; Maurizio Muscaritoli; Faith Ottery; Lukas Radbruch; Paula Ravasco; Declan Walsh; Andrew Wilcock; Stein Kaasa; Vickie E Baracos Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2011-02-04 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: James P B O'Connor; Eric O Aboagye; Judith E Adams; Hugo J W L Aerts; Sally F Barrington; Ambros J Beer; Ronald Boellaard; Sarah E Bohndiek; Michael Brady; Gina Brown; David L Buckley; Thomas L Chenevert; Laurence P Clarke; Sandra Collette; Gary J Cook; Nandita M deSouza; John C Dickson; Caroline Dive; Jeffrey L Evelhoch; Corinne Faivre-Finn; Ferdia A Gallagher; Fiona J Gilbert; Robert J Gillies; Vicky Goh; John R Griffiths; Ashley M Groves; Steve Halligan; Adrian L Harris; David J Hawkes; Otto S Hoekstra; Erich P Huang; Brian F Hutton; Edward F Jackson; Gordon C Jayson; Andrew Jones; Dow-Mu Koh; Denis Lacombe; Philippe Lambin; Nathalie Lassau; Martin O Leach; Ting-Yim Lee; Edward L Leen; Jason S Lewis; Yan Liu; Mark F Lythgoe; Prakash Manoharan; Ross J Maxwell; Kenneth A Miles; Bruno Morgan; Steve Morris; Tony Ng; Anwar R Padhani; Geoff J M Parker; Mike Partridge; Arvind P Pathak; Andrew C Peet; Shonit Punwani; Andrew R Reynolds; Simon P Robinson; Lalitha K Shankar; Ricky A Sharma; Dmitry Soloviev; Sigrid Stroobants; Daniel C Sullivan; Stuart A Taylor; Paul S Tofts; Gillian M Tozer; Marcel van Herk; Simon Walker-Samuel; James Wason; Kaye J Williams; Paul Workman; Thomas E Yankeelov; Kevin M Brindle; Lisa M McShane; Alan Jackson; John C Waterton Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2016-10-11 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Alfonso J Cruz-Jentoft; Gülistan Bahat; Jürgen Bauer; Yves Boirie; Olivier Bruyère; Tommy Cederholm; Cyrus Cooper; Francesco Landi; Yves Rolland; Avan Aihie Sayer; Stéphane M Schneider; Cornel C Sieber; Eva Topinkova; Maurits Vandewoude; Marjolein Visser; Mauro Zamboni Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2019-01-01 Impact factor: 10.668