Back

HIBRID: Histology and ct-DNA based Risk-stratification with Deep Learning

Loeffler, C. M. L.; Bando, H.; Sainath, S.; Muti, H. S.; Jiang, X.; van Treeck, M.; Reitsam, N. G.; Carrero, Z. I.; Nishikawa, T.; Misumi, T.; Mishima, S.; Kotani, D.; Taniguchi, H.; Takemasa, I.; Kato, T.; Oki, E.; Yuan, T.; Wankhede, D.; Foersch, S.; Brenner, H.; Hoffmeister, M.; Nakamura, Y.; Yoshino, T.; Kather, J. N.

2024-07-23 gastroenterology
10.1101/2024.07.23.24310822 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundAlthough surgical resection is the standard therapy for stage II/III colorectal cancer (CRC), recurrence rates exceed 30%. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) emerged as a promising recurrence predictor, detecting molecular residual disease (MRD). However, spatial information about the tumor and its microenvironment is not directly measured by ctDNA. Deep Learning (DL) can predict prognosis directly from routine histopathology slides. MethodsWe developed a DL pipeline utilizing vision transformers to predict disease-free survival (DFS) based on histological hematoxylin & eosin (H&E) stained whole slide images (WSIs) from patients with resectable stage II-IV CRC. This model was trained on the DACHS cohort (n=1766) and independently validated on the GALAXY cohort (n=1555). Patients were categorized into high- or low-risk groups based on the DL-prediction scores. In the GALAXY cohort, the DL-scores were combined with the four-weeks post-surgery MRD status measured by ctDNA for prognostic stratification. ResultsIn GALAXY, the DL-model categorized 307 patients as DL high-risk and 1248 patients as DL low-risk (p<0.001; HR 2.60, CI 95% 2.11-3.21). Combining the DL scores with the MRD status significantly stratified both the MRD-positive group into DL high-risk (n=81) and DL low-risk (n=160) (HR 1.58 (CI 95% 1.17-2.11; p=0.002) and the MRD-negative group into DL high-risk (n=226) and DL low-risk (n=1088) (HR 2.37 CI 95% 1.73-3.23; p<0.001). Moreover, MRD-negative patients had significantly longer DFS when predicted as DL high-risk and treated with ACT (HR 0.48, CI 95% 0.27-0.86; p= 0.01), compared to the MRD-negative patients predicted as DL low-risk (HR=1.14, CI 95% 0.8-1.63; p=0.48). ConclusionDL-based spatial assessment of tumor histopathology slides significantly improves the risk stratification provided by MRD alone. Combining histologic information with ctDNA yields the most powerful predictor for disease recurrence to date, with the potential to improve follow-up, withhold adjuvant chemotherapy in low-risk patients and escalate adjuvant chemotherapy in high-risk patients. Highlights- This study combines MRD status measured by ctDNA with a DL-based risk assessment trained on histological image data to enhance recurrence prediction. - DL-based spatial assessment of tumor histopathology slides significantly improves the risk stratification provided by MRD alone. - MRD-negative patients with high DL-based risk had a significantly longer DFS if treated with ACT, compared to MRD-negative and DL low risk patients - The DL model is fully open-source and publicly available.

Matching journals

The top 11 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 12%
7.2%
2
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.8%
3
International Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.4%
4
BMC Cancer
52 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.3%
5
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
4.3%
6
Biomedicines
66 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
7
Translational Oncology
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
8
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 39%
3.6%
9
Oncogene
76 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.6%
10
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.6%
11
Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
50% of probability mass above
12
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.2%
13
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 43%
2.9%
14
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.6%
15
Molecular Oncology
50 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
16
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.9%
17
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
18
npj Precision Oncology
48 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
19
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
20
Journal of Translational Medicine
46 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
21
Annals of Oncology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.2%
22
European Journal of Cancer
10 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
23
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 22%
0.9%
24
Frontiers in Immunology
586 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.8%
25
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.8%
26
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
27
Bioinformatics
1061 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.8%
28
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.7%
29
Database
51 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.7%
30
JNCI Cancer Spectrum
10 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%