Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30500819›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2018

Deep learning for lung cancer prognostication: A retrospective multi-cohort radiomics study.

Ahmed Hosny, Chintan Parmar, Thibaud P Coroller, Patrick Grossmann, Roman Zeleznik, Avnish Kumar, Johan Bussink, Robert J Gillies, Raymond H Mak, Hugo J W L Aerts

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 280 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
280citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
41.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

280 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 574 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

220 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Ahmed HosnyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-1844-481X
Chintan ParmarDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Thibaud P CorollerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Patrick GrossmannDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-4918-6902
Roman ZeleznikDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Avnish KumarDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-5882-748X
Johan BussinkDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Robert J GilliesDepartment of Cancer Physiology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-8888-7747
Raymond H MakDepartment of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Hugo J W L AertsDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-2122-2003
Brigham and Women's Hospital · USMoffitt Cancer Center · USRadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

Quantitative Radiomics System Decoding the Tumor PhenotypeU24CA194354 · NCI · DANA-FARBER CANCER INST · PI AERTS, HUGO, QUACKENBUSH, JOHN · 2015 to 2019
$3.5M
Genotype and Imaging Phenotype Biomarkers in Lung CancerU01CA190234 · NCI · DANA-FARBER CANCER INST · PI AERTS, HUGO, QUACKENBUSH, JOHN · 2015 to 2019
$3.3M
NCI NIH HHS U01 CA190234NCI NIH HHS U24 CA194354
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNon-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients often demonstrate varying clinical courses and outcomes, even within the same tumor stage. This study explores deep learning applications in medical imaging allowing for the automated quantification of radiographic characteristics and potentially improving patient stratification. METHODS AND

findingsWe performed an integrative analysis on 7 independent datasets across 5 institutions totaling 1,194 NSCLC patients (age median = 68.3 years [range 32.5-93.3], survival median = 1.7 years [range 0.0-11.7]). Using external validation in computed tomography (CT) data, we identified prognostic signatures using a 3D convolutional neural network (CNN) for patients treated with radiotherapy (n = 771, age median = 68.0 years [range 32.5-93.3], survival median = 1.3 years [range 0.0-11.7]). We then employed a transfer learning approach to achieve the same for surgery patients (n = 391, age median = 69.1 years [range 37.2-88.0], survival median = 3.1 years [range 0.0-8.8]). We found that the CNN predictions were significantly associated with 2-year overall survival from the start of respective treatment for radiotherapy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC] = 0.70 [95% CI 0.63-0.78], p < 0.001) and surgery (AUC = 0.71 [95% CI 0.60-0.82], p < 0.001) patients. The CNN was also able to significantly stratify patients into low and high mortality risk groups in both the radiotherapy (p < 0.001) and surgery (p = 0.03) datasets. Additionally, the CNN was found to significantly outperform random forest models built on clinical parameters-including age, sex, and tumor node metastasis stage-as well as demonstrate high robustness against test-retest (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.91) and inter-reader (Spearman's rank-order correlation = 0.88) variations. To gain a better understanding of the characteristics captured by the CNN, we identified regions with the most contribution towards predictions and highlighted the importance of tumor-surrounding tissue in patient stratification. We also present preliminary findings on the biological basis of the captured phenotypes as being linked to cell cycle and transcriptional processes. Limitations include the retrospective nature of this study as well as the opaque black box nature of deep learning networks.

conclusionsOur results provide evidence that deep learning networks may be used for mortality risk stratification based on standard-of-care CT images from NSCLC patients. This evidence motivates future research into better deciphering the clinical and biological basis of deep learning networks as well as validation in prospective data.

Indexed as

Deep LearningAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungClinical Decision-MakingDiagnosis, Computer-AssistedFemaleHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPredictive Value of TestsPreliminary DataRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted

Identifiers

PMID30500819
PMCPMC6269088
OpenAlexW2903150666

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.