Artificial intelligence-guided tissue analysis combined with immune infiltrate assessment predicts stage III colon cancer outcomes in PETACC08 study
Affiliation auteurs | !!!! Error affiliation !!!! |
Titre | Artificial intelligence-guided tissue analysis combined with immune infiltrate assessment predicts stage III colon cancer outcomes in PETACC08 study |
Type de publication | Journal Article |
Year of Publication | 2020 |
Auteurs | Reichling C, Taieb J, Derangere V, Klopfenstein Q, Le Malicot K, Gornet J-M, Becheur H, Fein F, Cojocarasu O, Kaminsky MChristine, Lagasse JPaul, Luet D, Nguyen S, Etienne P-L, Gasmi M, Vanoli A, Perrier H, Puig P-L, Emile J-F, Lepage C, Ghiringhelli F |
Journal | GUT |
Volume | 69 |
Pagination | 681-690 |
Date Published | APR |
Type of Article | Article |
ISSN | 0017-5749 |
Résumé | {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 |
DOI | 10.1136/gutjnl-2019-319292 |