Back

Image-based models of T-cell distribution identify a clinically meaningful response to a dendritic cell vaccine in patients with glioblastoma

Bond, K. M.; Curtin, L.; Hawkins-Daarud, A.; Urcuyo, J. C.; DeLeon, G.; Singleton, K. W.; Ashfari, A. E.; Paulson, L. E.; Sereduk, C. P.; Smith, K. A.; Nakaji, P.; Baxter, L. C.; Patra, D. P.; Gustafson, M. P.; Dietz, A. B.; Zimmerman, R. S.; Bendok, B. R.; Tran, N. L.; Hu, L. S.; Parney, I. F.; Rubin, J. B.; Swanson, K. R.

2023-07-16 oncology
10.1101/2023.07.13.23292619 medRxiv
Show abstract

BACKGROUNDGlioblastoma is an extraordinarily heterogeneous tumor, yet the current treatment paradigm is a "one size fits all" approach. Hundreds of glioblastoma clinical trials have been deemed failures because they did not extend median survival, but these cohorts are comprised of patients with diverse tumors. Current methods of assessing treatment efficacy fail to fully account for this heterogeneity. METHODSUsing an image-based modeling approach, we predicted T-cell abundance from serial MRIs of patients enrolled in the dendritic cell (DC) vaccine clinical trial. T-cell predictions were quantified in both the contrast-enhancing and non-enhancing regions of the imageable tumor, and changes over time were assessed. RESULTSA subset of patients in a DC vaccine clinical trial, who had previously gone undetected, were identified as treatment responsive and benefited from prolonged survival. A mere two months after initial vaccine administration, responsive patients had a decrease in model-predicted T-cells within the contrast-enhancing region, with a simultaneous increase in the T2/FLAIR region. CONCLUSIONSIn a field that has yet to see breakthrough therapies, these results highlight the value of machine learning in enhancing clinical trial assessment, improving our ability to prospectively prognosticate patient outcomes, and advancing the pursuit towards individualized medicine.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.