4.8 Article

Artificial intelligence-guided tissue analysis combined with immune infiltrate assessment predicts stage III colon cancer outcomes in PETACC08 study

期刊

GUT
卷 69, 期 4, 页码 681-690

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2019-319292

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ligue National Contre le Cancer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Diagnostic tests, such as Immunoscore, predict prognosis in patients with colon cancer. However, additional prognostic markers could be detected on pathological slides using artificial intelligence tools. Design We have developed a software to detect colon tumour, healthy mucosa, stroma and immune cells on CD3 and CD8 stained slides. The lymphocyte density and surface area were quantified automatically in the tumour core (TC) and invasive margin (IM). Using a LASSO algorithm, DGMate (DiGital tuMor pArameTErs), we detected digital parameters within the tumour cells related to patient outcomes. Results Within the dataset of 1018 patients, we observed that a poorer relapse-free survival (RFS) was associated with high IM stromal area (HR 5.65; 95%CI 2.34 to 13.67; p<0.0001) and high DGMate (HR 2.72; 95% CI 1.92 to 3.85; p<0.001). Higher CD3+ TC, CD3+ IM and CD8+ TC densities were significantly associated with a longer RFS. Analysis of variance showed that CD3+ TC yielded a similar prognostic value to the classical CD3/CD8 Immunoscore (p=0.44). A combination of the IM stromal area, DGMate and CD3, designated 'DGMuneS', outperformed Immunoscore when used in estimating patients' prognosis (C-index=0.601 vs 0.578, p=0.04) and was independently associated with patient outcomes following Cox multivariate analysis. A predictive nomogram based on DGMuneS and clinical variables identified a group of patients with less than 10% relapse risk and another group with a 50% relapse risk. Conclusion These findings suggest that artificial intelligence can potentially improve patient care by assisting pathologists in better defining stage III colon cancer patients' prognosis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据