Back

Identification of collagen features predictive of recurrence following radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer: a retrospective case control analysis

Jenkins, R. P.; Fu, X.; Waise, S.; Dewan, M.; Griffin, C.; Stuttle, C.; Cruickshank, C.; Dearnaley, D.; Syndikus, I.; Hall, E.; Sahai, E.; Wilkins, A.

2026-07-17 oncology
10.64898/2026.07.16.26358234 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Changes in the extracellular matrix (ECM) are a recognised feature of aggressive prostate cancer, but they are not exploited in clinical decision-making. We aimed to develop automated quantitative ECM parameters to facilitate risk stratification for localised prostate cancer. Methods: 378 quantitative ECM parameters were derived from picrosirius red-stained diagnostic prostate biopsies in a cohort of 422 patients, matched 1:1 for recurrence, recruited to the CHHiP (Conventional or Hypofractionated High Dose Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer) trial of radiotherapy fractionation for localised prostate cancer. These ECM parameters comprehensively described fibre architecture, gaps and ECM texture. Machine learning models at the level of both individual image tiles and patients defined how ECM parameters related to tumour versus normal prostate, Gleason grade group and recurrence. Shapley analysis was used to interpret ECM feature importance and develop signatures associated with recurrence. Results: Specific ECM patterns identified tumour versus normal prostate, Gleason pattern 4 versus 3 and recurrence. ECM patterns associated with recurrence were enriched in Gleason 4+3 patients, versus Gleason 3+4 patients. Shapley analysis revealed that biopsies from patients with recurrence had smaller more elongated gaps between fibres, with finer grained ECM texture and lower ECM homogeneity than less recurrent regions. Interpretation: Quantitative automated analysis of ECM architecture can inform probability of prostate cancer recurrence after radiotherapy; Features relating to ECM gap size and texture are of particular relevance.

Matching journals

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

1
International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.1%
2
Clinical and Translational Radiation Oncology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.0%
3
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 6%
9.0%
4
British Journal of Cancer
49 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.9%
5
Frontiers in Oncology
103 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
4.4%
50% of probability mass above
6
Clinical Cancer Research
64 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.1%
7
Cancers
213 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.1%
8
Radiotherapy and Oncology
19 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.3%
9
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 6%
3.3%
10
The Prostate
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.3%
11
BMC Cancer
67 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.3%
12
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 40%
2.4%
13
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 48%
1.7%
14
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 52%
1.5%
15
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
16
Journal of Translational Medicine
57 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
17
The Journal of Pathology
26 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.1%
18
Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer
75 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
19
European Journal of Cancer
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
20
Frontiers in Genetics
230 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
21
Modern Pathology
22 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
22
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.9%
23
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 11%
0.9%
24
Clinical Epigenetics
60 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
25
Frontiers in Bioinformatics
49 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%