ArticleResearch square2023
The prognostic value of tumor-stroma ratio and a newly developed computer-aided quantitative analysis of routine H&E slides in high-grade serous ovarian cancer.
Article in Research square, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Tumor-stroma ratio (TSR) is prognostic in multiple cancers, while its role in high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) remains unclear. Despite the prognostic insight gained from genetic profiles and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), the prognostic use of histology slides remains limited, while it enables the identification of tumor characteristics via computational pathology reducing scoring time and costs. To address this, this study aimed to assess TSR's prognostic role in HGSOC and its association with TILs. We additionally developed an algorithm, Ovarian-TSR (OTSR), using deep learning for TSR scoring, comparing it to manual scoring. Methods: 340 patients with advanced-stage who underwent primary debulking surgery (PDS) or neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) with interval debulking (IDS). TSR was assessed in both the most invasive (MI) and whole tumor (WT) regions through manual scoring by pathologists and quantification using OTSR. Patients were categorized as stroma-rich (≥ 50% stroma) or stroma-poor (< 50%). TILs were evaluated via immunohistochemical staining. Results: In PDS, stroma-rich tumors were significantly associated with a more frequent papillary growth pattern (60% vs 34%), while In NACT stroma-rich tumors had a lower Tumor Regression Grading (TRG 4&5, 21% vs 57%) and increased pleural metastasis (25% vs 16%). Stroma-rich patients had significantly shorter overall and progression-free survival compared to stroma-poor (31 versus 45 months; P < 0.0001, and 15 versus 17 months; P = 0.0008, respectively). Combining stromal percentage and TILs led to three distinct survival groups with good (stroma-poor, high TIL), medium (stroma-rich, high TIL, or; stroma-poor, Low TIL), and poor(stroma-rich, low TIL) survival. These survival groups remained significant in CD8 and CD103 in multivariable analysis (Hazard ratio (HR) = 1.42, 95% Confidence-interval (CI) = 1.02-1.99; HR = 1.49, 95% CI = 1.01-2.18, and HR = 1.48, 95% CI = 1.05-2.08; HR = 2.24, 95% CI = 1.55-3.23, respectively). OTSR was able to recapitulate these results and demonstrated high concordance with expert pathologists (correlation = 0.83). Conclusions: TSR is an independent prognostic factor for survival assessment in HGSOC. Stroma-rich tumors have a worse prognosis and, in the case of NACT, a higher likelihood of pleural metastasis. OTSR provides a cost and time-efficient way of determining TSR with high reproducibility and reduced inter-observer variability.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.