Colorectal cancer heterogeneity co-evolves with tumor architecture to determine disease outcome
Bertillot, F.; Herve, S.; Drobjazko, N.; Kedei, N.; Elgendi, M.; Hernandez, M. O.; Kruse, K.; Erkan, E. P.; Binner, M.; Punovuori, K.; Pellinen, T.; Ahtiainen, M.; Bohm, J.; Mecklin, J.-P.; Haglund, C.; Hagstrom, J.; iCAN Consortium, ; Nikolaev, M.; Gjorevski, N.; Lutolf, M.; Seppala, T. T.; Wickstrom, S. A.; Miroshnikova, Y. A.
Show abstract
Intratumoral heterogeneity, originating from genetic, epigenetic, and phenotypic cellular diversity, is pervasive in cancer. As these heterogeneous states employ diverse mechanisms to promote tumor progression, metastasis, and therapy resistance, emergence of cancer heterogeneity is one of the most significant barriers to curative treatment. Here we leverage deep learning approaches to develop a high-throughput image-analysis paradigm with subcellular resolution that quantifies and predicts colorectal cancer (CRC) patient outcome based on tissue architecture and nuclear morphology. We further combine this approach with spatial transcriptomics, multiplex immunohistochemistry, and patient-derived organoids to uncover a dynamic, co-evolutionary relationship between tumor architecture and cell states. We identify clinically relevant architectural interfaces in CRC tissue that diversify cellular identities by favoring distinct cancer stem cell states and thus promote evolution of tumor heterogeneity. Specifically, tissue fragmentation and associated compressive forces promote loss of classic stem cell signature and acquisition of fetal/regenerative stem cell states, which initially emerges as a hybrid state with features of epithelial-to-mesenchyme (EMT) transition. Additional tumor stroma communication then diversifies these states into distinct stem cell and EMT states at the invasive margins of tumors. Reciprocally, Wnt signaling state of tumor cells tunes their responsiveness to tissue architecture. Collectively, this work uncovers a feedback loop between cell states and tissue architecture that drives cancer heterogeneity and cell state diversification. Machine learning-based analyses harness this co-dependency, independently of mutational status or cancer stage, to predict patient outcome.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Mapping and modeling human colorectal carcinoma interactions with the tumor microenvironment 98%
- Dictionary of human intestinal organoid responses to secreted niche factors at single cell resolution 97%
- Spatial transcriptomics reveals distinct and conserved tumor core and edge architectures that predict survival and targeted therapy response 97%
Similar papers in this journal
- An immunomechanical checkpoint PYK2 governs monocyte-to-macrophage differentiation in pancreatic cancer 97%
- Multimodal Spatial Profiling Reveals Immune Suppression and Microenvironment Remodeling in Fallopian Tube Precursors to High-Grade Serous Ovarian Carcinoma 96%
- Generation of a biliary tract cancer cell line atlas reveals molecular subtypes and therapeutic targets 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- ecDNA amplification of MYC drives intratumor copy-number heterogeneity and adaptation to stress in PDAC 97%
- Functional interrogation uncovers a critical role for a high-plasticity cell state in lung adenocarcinoma 96%
- A single-cell transcriptional timelapse of mouse embryonic development, from gastrula to pup 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Predicting the Tumor Microenvironment Composition and Immunotherapy Response in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer from Digital Histopathology Images 95%
- Clonal determinants of organotropism and survival in metastatic uveal melanoma 95%
- Single-Cell Spatial Proteomics Analyses of Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma Reveal Tumor Heterogeneity and Immune Architectures Associated with Clinical Outcome 94%
Similar papers in this journal
"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.