| Literature DB >> 36195956 |
Jing Yang1,2, Huifen Ye1,3,4, Xinjuan Fan5, Yajun Li1, Xiaomei Wu6, Minning Zhao4, Qingru Hu4, Yunrui Ye4, Lin Wu7, Zhenhui Li1,8, Xueli Zhang9, Changhong Liang1,3, Yingyi Wang10, Yao Xu1,11, Qian Li1, Su Yao12, Dingyun You13, Ke Zhao14,15,16, Zaiyi Liu17,18.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We proposed an artificial intelligence-based immune index, Deep-immune score, quantifying the infiltration of immune cells interacting with the tumor stroma in hematoxylin and eosin-stained whole-slide images of colorectal cancer.Entities:
Keywords: Colorectal cancer; Deep learning; Deep-immune score; Digital pathology; Whole-slide images
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36195956 PMCID: PMC9533523 DOI: 10.1186/s12967-022-03666-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Transl Med ISSN: 1479-5876 Impact factor: 8.440
Fig. 1Study workflow. A Top panel: A CNN model (CNN-HE) was used to classify the HE-stained WSI of colorectal cancer into eight tissue types and one slide background. A rough segmentation map was obtained. The Deep-TSR score is calculated as "the area of STR /the area of STR and TUM". Bottom panel: Using STR of tissue segmentation as the mask, we define the Deep-TIL score as the mean prediction probability of LYM class in STR class. B The Deep-immune score was synthesized by the Deep-TSR score and Deep-TIL score. Deep-TSR-high and Deep-TSR-low groups were given 0 and 1 points, respectively. Deep-TIL-low, Deep-TIL-middle, and Deep-TIL-high groups were given 1, 2, and 3 points, respectively. A four-level scoring system (score 1–4) was established by summing both the Deep-TSR score and the Deep-TIL score. HE, hematoxylin and eosin; WSI, whole-slide image; CNN, convolutional neural network; ADI, adipose; BAC, background; DEB, debris; LYM, lymphocyte aggregates; MUC, mucus; MUS, muscle; NOR, normal mucosa; STR, stroma; TUM, tumor epithelium; TSR, tumor-stroma ratio; TIL, tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte
Fig. 2Association of Deep-TSR score, Deep-TIL score, and Deep-immune score with stroma-CD3 density. A A second CNN model (CNN-IHC) was used for tissue-level segmentation of IHC-stained WSI. The tissue types of the segmentation are the same as Fig. 1A. STR was used as the region of interest for WSI, and all CD3 + T-cells were segmented and counted within WSI. Then, the stroma-CD3 density was calculated by using the number of all CD3+ T cells divided by the STR area. B-D Student t-test was also used to compare the difference in stroma-CD3 density between groups with different scores (such as Deep-immune score 4 vs. 3) in primary cohort. E–G Student t-test was used in validation cohort to compare the difference in stroma-CD3 density between groups with different scores. (nsP > 0.05, *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001, Student’s t-test). HE, hematoxylin and eosin; IHC, immunohistochemistry; WSI, whole-slide image; CNN, convolutional neural network; STR, stroma; TUM, tumor epithelium; TSR, tumor-stroma ratio; TIL, tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte
Fig. 3Kaplan–Meier plots for CRC patients according to Deep-TIL score and Deep-TSR score. A Deep-TIL score in the primary cohort; B Deep-TIL score in the validation cohort; C Deep-TSR score in the primary cohort; D Deep-TSR score in the validation cohort. TSR, tumor-stroma ratio; TIL, tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte
Uni– and multivariate analyses including TNM, sex, age, location, CEA, grade, Deep-TSR score, Deep-TIL score, and Deep-immune score for OS in the two cohorts
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary cohort | Validation cohort | Primary cohort | Validation cohort | |||||
| HR (95% CI) | P | HR (95% CI) | P | HR (95% CI) | P | HR (95% CI) | P | |
| I | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| II | 2.48 (1.12–5.50) | 0.025 | 1.53 (0.54–4.34) | 0.400 | 2.56 (1.01–6.51) | 0.048 | 1.14 (0.39–3.36) | 0.800 |
| III | 6.17 (2.87–13.3) | < 0.001 | 3.94 (1.44–10.8) | 0.008 | 5.78 (2.33–14.4) | < 0.001 | 2.70 (0.94–7.79) | 0.066 |
| Male | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| Female | 1.05 (0.71–1.56) | 0.800 | 0.78 (0.33–1.84) | 0.600 | ||||
| Age | 1.03 (1.01–1.04) | < 0.001 | 1.03 (1.01–1.04) | 0.001 | 1.03 (1.01–1.04) | < 0.001 | 1.03 (1.01–1.04) | < 0.001 |
| Colon | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| Rectum | 1.00 (0.73–1.37) | 0.999 | 1.48 (1.00–2.21) | 0.053 | ||||
| Normal | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Abnormal | 2.58 (1.87–3.56) | < 0.001 | 1.98 (1.35–2.91) | < 0.001 | 1.94 (1.40–2.70) | < 0.001 | 1.46 (0.46–1.18) | 0.200 |
| Low | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| High | 1.44 (0.91–2.28) | 0.120 | 1.80 (1.22–2.67) | 0.003 | ||||
| High | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| Low | 0.62 (0.45–0.86) | 0.004 | 0.57 (0.38–0.85) | 0.005 | ||||
| Low | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| Middle | 0.69 (0.48–0.99) | 0.044 | 0.73 (0.46–1.17) | 0.200 | ||||
| High | 0.45 (0.30–0.67) | < 0.001 | 0.49 (0.31–0.77) | 0.002 | ||||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 2 | 0.68 (0.43–1.08) | 0.100 | 0.72 (0.45–1.14) | 0.200 | 0.67 (0.42–1.10) | 0.110 | 0.73 (0.46–1.18) | 0.200 |
| 3 | 0.48 (0.30–0.77) | 0.002 | 0.48 (0.29–0.79) | 0.004 | 0.54 (0.33–0.90) | 0.019 | 0.64 (0.38–1.07) | 0.091 |
| 4 | 0.27 (0.15–0.48) | < 0.001 | 0.31 (0.15–0.62) | < 0.001 | 0.36 (0.20–0.66) | 0.001 | 0.41 (0.20–0.84) | 0.016 |
TNM, tumor-node-metastasis; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; TSR, tumor-stroma ratio; TIL, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes; OS, overall survival; HR, Hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval
Fig. 4Kaplan–Meier and iAUC plots. Kaplan–Meier plots of Deep-immune score in primary cohort (A) and in the validation cohort (B). The iAUC of 0–5 years of factors and models in primary cohort (C) and in the validation cohort (D). TSR, tumor-stroma ratio; TIL, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes. TNM, tumor-node-metastasis; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; iAUC, the integrated area under the ROC curve