Evidence Hub

Real-World and Clinical Trial Validation of a Deep Learning Radiomic Biomarker for PD-(L)1 Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Response in Advanced Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer

C. Sako, Chong Duan, Kevin Maresca, S. Kent, T. Schmidt, Hugo J. W. L. Aerts, R. Parikh, George R. Simon et al.

JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics, 2024

1,829 participants · 17 citations

Abstract

PURPOSE This study developed and validated a novel deep learning radiomic biomarker to estimate response to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy in advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) using real-world data (RWD) and clinical trial data. MATERIALS AND METHODS Retrospective RWD of 1,829 patients with advanced NSCLC treated with PD-(L)1 ICIs were collected from 10 academic and community institutions in the United States and Europe. The RWD included data sets for discovery (Data Set A-Discovery, n = 1,173) and independent test (Data Set B, n = 458). A radiomic pipeline, containing a deep learning feature extractor and a survival model, generated the computed tomography (CT) response score (CTRS) applied to the pretreatment routine CT/positron emission tomography (PET)-CT scan. An enhanced CTRS (eCTRS) also incorporated age, sex, treatment line, and lesion annotations. Performance was evaluated against progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Biomarker generalizability was further evaluated using a secondary analysis of a prospective clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02573259) evaluating the PD-1 inhibitor sasanlimab in second or later line of treatment (Data Set C, n = 54). RESULTS In RWD Test Data Set B, the CTRS identified patients with a high probability of response to ICI with a PFS hazard ratio (HR) of 0.46 (95% CI, 0.26 to 0.82) and an OS HR of 0.50 (95% CI, 0.28 to 0.92) in the first-line ICI monotherapy cohort, after…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 1,829 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free