Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 May 23;4(5):1344-1350.
doi: 10.1158/2767-9764.CRC-24-0031.

Use of Deep Learning to Evaluate Tumor Microenvironmental Features for Prediction of Colon Cancer Recurrence

Affiliations

Use of Deep Learning to Evaluate Tumor Microenvironmental Features for Prediction of Colon Cancer Recurrence

Frank A Sinicrope et al. Cancer Res Commun. .

Abstract

Deep learning may detect biologically important signals embedded in tumor morphologic features that confer distinct prognoses. Tumor morphologic features were quantified to enhance patient risk stratification within DNA mismatch repair (MMR) groups using deep learning. Using a quantitative segmentation algorithm (QuantCRC) that identifies 15 distinct morphologic features, we analyzed 402 resected stage III colon carcinomas [191 deficient (d)-MMR; 189 proficient (p)-MMR] from participants in a phase III trial of FOLFOX-based adjuvant chemotherapy. Results were validated in an independent cohort (176 d-MMR; 1,094 p-MMR). Association of morphologic features with clinicopathologic variables, MMR, KRAS, BRAFV600E, and time-to-recurrence (TTR) was determined. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were developed to predict TTR. Tumor morphologic features differed significantly by MMR status. Cancers with p-MMR had more immature desmoplastic stroma. Tumors with d-MMR had increased inflammatory stroma, epithelial tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL), high-grade histology, mucin, and signet ring cells. Stromal subtype did not differ by BRAFV600E or KRAS status. In p-MMR tumors, multivariable analysis identified tumor-stroma ratio (TSR) as the strongest feature associated with TTR [HRadj 2.02; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.14-3.57; P = 0.018; 3-year recurrence: 40.2% vs. 20.4%; Q1 vs. Q2-4]. Among d-MMR tumors, extent of inflammatory stroma (continuous HRadj 0.98; 95% CI, 0.96-0.99; P = 0.028; 3-year recurrence: 13.3% vs. 33.4%, Q4 vs. Q1) and N stage were the most robust prognostically. Association of TSR with TTR was independently validated. In conclusion, QuantCRC can quantify morphologic differences within MMR groups in routine tumor sections to determine their relative contributions to patient prognosis, and may elucidate relevant pathophysiologic mechanisms driving prognosis.

Significance: A deep learning algorithm can quantify tumor morphologic features that may reflect underlying mechanisms driving prognosis within MMR groups. TSR was the most robust morphologic feature associated with TTR in p-MMR colon cancers. Extent of inflammatory stroma and N stage were the strongest prognostic features in d-MMR tumors. TIL density was not independently prognostic in either MMR group.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
QuantCRC detects tumor morphologic features in four layers. TB/PDC, tumor budding/poorly differentiated cluster; TIL, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes. https://cloud.aiforia.com/Public/MayoUpmcAiforia_Pai/0z9TK9WQComQSW5MOEo_1KieA8U9KX9oCFbc2SQ-ioM0. To see the QuantCRC analysis click on the image, then click on “analyze,” and then click on the thumbnail of the image.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Artificial intelligence–derived morphologic features in stage III colon cancers (NCCTG N0147 trial) that were found to be most strongly associated with patient TTR. Data are shown in Kaplan–Meier plots for TSR among p-MMR tumors in initial cohort (A), validation cohort (B), and % inflammatory stroma among d-MMR tumors in initial cohort (C) and validation cohort (D). TSR is shown by level (level 1 < 0.65; level 2 ≥ 0.65). Inflammatory stroma level includes level 1 (<7.38), level 2 (≥7.38 and <15.22), level 3 (≥15.22 and <36.75), level 4 (≥36.75).

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Skrede O-J, De Raedt S, Kleppe A, Hveem TS, Liestøl K, Maddison J, et al. . Deep learning for prediction of colorectal cancer outcome: a discovery and validation study. Lancet 2020;395:350–60. - PubMed
    1. Bychkov D, Linder N, Turkki R, Nordling S, Kovanen PE, Verrill C, et al. . Deep learning based tissue analysis predicts outcome in colorectal cancer. Sci Rep 2018;8:3395. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wulczyn E, Steiner DF, Moran M, Plass M, Reihs R, Tan F, et al. . Interpretable survival prediction for colorectal cancer using deep learning. NPJ Digit Med 2021;4:71. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tizhoosh HR, Diamandis P, Campbell CJV, Safarpoor A, Kalra S, Maleki D, et al. . Searching images for consensus: can AI remove observer variability in pathology? Am J Pathol 2021;191:1702–8. - PubMed
    1. Pai RK, Banerjee I, Shivji S, Jain S, Hartman D, Buchanan DD, et al. . Quantitative pathologic analysis of digitized images of colorectal carcinoma improves prediction of recurrence-free survival. Gastroenterology 2022;163:1531–46. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Supplementary concepts