Xingyu Li1, Jitendra Jonnagaddala2, Shuhua Yang1, Hong Zhang3, Xu Steven Xu4. 1. Department of Statistics and Finance, School of Management, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, 230026, Anhui, China. 2. School of Population Health, UNSW Sydney, Kensington, NSW, Australia. 3. Department of Statistics and Finance, School of Management, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, 230026, Anhui, China. zhangh@ustc.edu.cn. 4. Clinical Pharmacology and Quantitative Science, Genmab Inc., Princeton, NJ, USA. sxu@genmab.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Most of Stage II/III colorectal cancer (CRC) patients can be cured by surgery alone, and only certain CRC patients benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. Risk stratification based on deep-learning from haematoxylin and eosin (H&E) images has been postulated as a potential predictive biomarker for benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. However, very limited success has been achieved in using biomarkers, including deep-learning-based markers, to facilitate the decision for adjuvant chemotherapy despite recent advances of artificial intelligence. METHODS: We trained and internally validated CRCNet using 780 Stage II/III CRC patients from Molecular and Cellular Oncology. Independent external validation of the model was performed using 337 Stage II/III CRC patients from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). RESULTS: CRCNet stratified the patients into high, medium, and low-risk subgroups. Multivariate Cox regression analyses confirmed that CRCNet risk groups are statistically significant after adjusting for existing risk factors. The high-risk subgroup significantly benefits from adjuvant chemotherapy. A hazard ratio (chemo-treated vs untreated) of 0.2 (95% Confidence Interval (CI), 0.05-0.65; P = 0.009) and 0.6 (95% CI 0.42-0.98; P = 0.038) are observed in the TCGA and MCO Fluorouracil-treated patients, respectively. Conversely, no significant benefit from chemotherapy is observed in the low- and medium-risk groups (P = 0.2-1). CONCLUSION: The retrospective analysis provides further evidence that H&E image-based biomarkers may potentially be of great use in delivering treatments following surgery for Stage II/III CRC, improving patient survival, and avoiding unnecessary treatment and associated toxicity, and warrants further validation on other datasets and prospective confirmation in clinical trials.
PURPOSE: Most of Stage II/III colorectal cancer (CRC) patients can be cured by surgery alone, and only certain CRC patients benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. Risk stratification based on deep-learning from haematoxylin and eosin (H&E) images has been postulated as a potential predictive biomarker for benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. However, very limited success has been achieved in using biomarkers, including deep-learning-based markers, to facilitate the decision for adjuvant chemotherapy despite recent advances of artificial intelligence. METHODS: We trained and internally validated CRCNet using 780 Stage II/III CRC patients from Molecular and Cellular Oncology. Independent external validation of the model was performed using 337 Stage II/III CRC patients from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). RESULTS: CRCNet stratified the patients into high, medium, and low-risk subgroups. Multivariate Cox regression analyses confirmed that CRCNet risk groups are statistically significant after adjusting for existing risk factors. The high-risk subgroup significantly benefits from adjuvant chemotherapy. A hazard ratio (chemo-treated vs untreated) of 0.2 (95% Confidence Interval (CI), 0.05-0.65; P = 0.009) and 0.6 (95% CI 0.42-0.98; P = 0.038) are observed in the TCGA and MCO Fluorouracil-treated patients, respectively. Conversely, no significant benefit from chemotherapy is observed in the low- and medium-risk groups (P = 0.2-1). CONCLUSION: The retrospective analysis provides further evidence that H&E image-based biomarkers may potentially be of great use in delivering treatments following surgery for Stage II/III CRC, improving patient survival, and avoiding unnecessary treatment and associated toxicity, and warrants further validation on other datasets and prospective confirmation in clinical trials.
Authors: Richard G Gray; Philip Quirke; Kelly Handley; Margarita Lopatin; Laura Magill; Frederick L Baehner; Claire Beaumont; Kim M Clark-Langone; Carl N Yoshizawa; Mark Lee; Drew Watson; Steven Shak; David J Kerr Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-11-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Aimery de Gramont; Eric Van Cutsem; Hans-Joachim Schmoll; Josep Tabernero; Stephen Clarke; Malcolm J Moore; David Cunningham; Thomas H Cartwright; J Randolph Hecht; Fernando Rivera; Seock-Ah Im; György Bodoky; Ramon Salazar; Frédérique Maindrault-Goebel; Einat Shacham-Shmueli; Emilio Bajetta; Martina Makrutzki; Aijing Shang; Thierry André; Paulo M Hoff Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2012-11-16 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Ahmedin Jemal; Ram C Tiwari; Taylor Murray; Asma Ghafoor; Alicia Samuels; Elizabeth Ward; Eric J Feuer; Michael J Thun Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2004 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Jérôme Galon; Bernhard Mlecnik; Gabriela Bindea; Helen K Angell; Anne Berger; Christine Lagorce; Alessandro Lugli; Inti Zlobec; Arndt Hartmann; Carlo Bifulco; Iris D Nagtegaal; Richard Palmqvist; Giuseppe V Masucci; Gerardo Botti; Fabiana Tatangelo; Paolo Delrio; Michele Maio; Luigi Laghi; Fabio Grizzi; Martin Asslaber; Corrado D'Arrigo; Fernando Vidal-Vanaclocha; Eva Zavadova; Lotfi Chouchane; Pamela S Ohashi; Sara Hafezi-Bakhtiari; Bradly G Wouters; Michael Roehrl; Linh Nguyen; Yutaka Kawakami; Shoichi Hazama; Kiyotaka Okuno; Shuji Ogino; Peter Gibbs; Paul Waring; Noriyuki Sato; Toshihiko Torigoe; Kyogo Itoh; Prabhu S Patel; Shilin N Shukla; Yili Wang; Scott Kopetz; Frank A Sinicrope; Viorel Scripcariu; Paolo A Ascierto; Francesco M Marincola; Bernard A Fox; Franck Pagès Journal: J Pathol Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 7.996
Authors: H E Danielsen; T S Hveem; E Domingo; M Pradhan; A Kleppe; R A Syvertsen; I Kostolomov; J A Nesheim; H A Askautrud; A Nesbakken; R A Lothe; A Svindland; N Shepherd; M Novelli; E Johnstone; I Tomlinson; R Kerr; D J Kerr Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Jakob Nikolas Kather; Johannes Krisam; Pornpimol Charoentong; Tom Luedde; Esther Herpel; Cleo-Aron Weis; Timo Gaiser; Alexander Marx; Nektarios A Valous; Dyke Ferber; Lina Jansen; Constantino Carlos Reyes-Aldasoro; Inka Zörnig; Dirk Jäger; Hermann Brenner; Jenny Chang-Claude; Michael Hoffmeister; Niels Halama Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2019-01-24 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Justin Guinney; Rodrigo Dienstmann; Xin Wang; Aurélien de Reyniès; Andreas Schlicker; Charlotte Soneson; Laetitia Marisa; Paul Roepman; Gift Nyamundanda; Paolo Angelino; Brian M Bot; Jeffrey S Morris; Iris M Simon; Sarah Gerster; Evelyn Fessler; Felipe De Sousa E Melo; Edoardo Missiaglia; Hena Ramay; David Barras; Krisztian Homicsko; Dipen Maru; Ganiraju C Manyam; Bradley Broom; Valerie Boige; Beatriz Perez-Villamil; Ted Laderas; Ramon Salazar; Joe W Gray; Douglas Hanahan; Josep Tabernero; Rene Bernards; Stephen H Friend; Pierre Laurent-Puig; Jan Paul Medema; Anguraj Sadanandam; Lodewyk Wessels; Mauro Delorenzi; Scott Kopetz; Louis Vermeulen; Sabine Tejpar Journal: Nat Med Date: 2015-10-12 Impact factor: 53.440