Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37478073›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Prediction of lymphoma response to CAR T cells by deep learning-based image analysis.

Yubing Tong, Jayaram K Udupa, Emeline Chong, Nicole Winchell, Changjian Sun, Yongning Zou, Stephen J Schuster, Drew A Torigian

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Reproducibility ofCurrent cardiology reports · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
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

8 authors.

Yubing TongMedical Image Processing Group, Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-2133-4910
Jayaram K UdupaMedical Image Processing Group, Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-7361-2927
Emeline ChongLymphoma Program, Abramson Cancer Center, Perelman Center for Advanced Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Nicole WinchellLymphoma Program, Abramson Cancer Center, Perelman Center for Advanced Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Changjian SunMedical Image Processing Group, Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Yongning ZouMedical Image Processing Group, Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-3360-0873
Stephen J SchusterLymphoma Program, Abramson Cancer Center, Perelman Center for Advanced Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Drew A TorigianMedical Image Processing Group, Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.

Funding

Models and methods for automatically measuring disease body-wide and staging disease via FDG-PET/CT in LymphomaR01CA255748 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI SCHUSTER, STEPHEN J, TORIGIAN, DREW · 2021 to 2024
$2.3M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA255748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical prognostic scoring systems have limited utility for predicting treatment outcomes in lymphomas. We therefore tested the feasibility of a deep-learning (DL)-based image analysis methodology on pre-treatment diagnostic computed tomography (dCT), low-dose CT (lCT), and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) images and rule-based reasoning to predict treatment response to chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy in B-cell lymphomas. Pre-treatment images of 770 lymph node lesions from 39 adult patients with B-cell lymphomas treated with CD19-directed CAR T-cells were analyzed. Transfer learning using a pre-trained neural network model, then retrained for a specific task, was used to predict lesion-level treatment responses from separate dCT, lCT, and FDG-PET images. Patient-level response analysis was performed by applying rule-based reasoning to lesion-level prediction results. Patient-level response prediction was also compared to prediction based on the international prognostic index (IPI) for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. The average accuracy of lesion-level response prediction based on single whole dCT slice-based input was 0.82+0.05 with sensitivity 0.87+0.07, specificity 0.77+0.12, and AUC 0.91+0.03. Patient-level response prediction from dCT, using the "Majority 60%" rule, had accuracy 0.81, sensitivity 0.75, and specificity 0.88 using 12-month post-treatment patient response as the reference standard and outperformed response prediction based on IPI risk factors (accuracy 0.54, sensitivity 0.38, and specificity 0.61 (p = 0.046)). Prediction of treatment outcome in B-cell lymphomas from pre-treatment medical images using DL-based image analysis and rule-based reasoning is feasible. This approach can potentially provide clinically useful prognostic information for decision-making in advance of initiating CAR T-cell therapy.

Indexed as

Deep LearningLymphoma, Large B-Cell, DiffuseAdultFluorodeoxyglucose F18HumansPositron-Emission TomographyPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyRetrospective StudiesT-LymphocytesTreatment OutcomeFluorodeoxyglucose F18

Identifiers

PMID37478073
PMCPMC10361488

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.