Imaging-guided prognostic score-based approach to assess the benefits of combotherapy versus monotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic MSI-H colorectal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: This retrospective study determined survival responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), comparing mono- (mono) and combo-immunotherapy (combo) in patients with microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) by analyzing quantitative imaging data and clinical factors. METHODS: One hundred fifty patients were included from two centers and divided into training (n = 105) and validation (n = 45) cohorts. Radiologists manually annotated chest-abdomen-pelvis computed tomography and calculated tumor burden. Progression-free survival (PFS) was assessed, and variables were selected through Recursive Feature Elimination. Cutoff values were determined using maximally selected rank statistics to binarize features, forming a risk score with hazard ratio-derived weights. RESULTS: In total, 2258 lesions were annotated with excellent reproducibility. Key variables in the training cohort included: total tumor volume (cutoff: 73 cm3), lesion count (cutoff: 20), age (cutoff: 60) and the presence of peritoneal carcinomatosis. Their respective weights were 1.13, 0.96, 0.91, and 0.38, resulting in a risk score cutoff of 1.36. Low-score patients showed similar overall survival and PFS regardless of treatment, while those with a high-score had significantly worse survivals with mono vs combo (P = 0.004 and P = 0.0001). In the validation set, low-score patients exhibited no significant difference in overall survival and PFS with mono or combo. However, patients with a high-score had worse PFS with mono (P = 0.046). CONCLUSIONS: A score based on total tumor volume, lesion count, the presence of peritoneal carcinomatosis, and age can guide MSI-H mCRC treatment decisions, allowing oncologists to identify suitable candidates for mono and combo ICI therapies.

Detection and characterization of pancreatic lesion with artificial intelligence: The SFR 2023 artificial intelligence data challenge.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the 2023 SFR data challenge was to invite researchers to develop artificial intelligence (AI) models to identify the presence of a pancreatic mass and distinguish between benign and malignant pancreatic masses on abdominal computed tomography (CT) examinations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Anonymized abdominal CT examinations acquired during the portal venous phase were collected from 18 French centers. Abdominal CT examinations were divided into three groups including CT examinations with no lesion, CT examinations with benign pancreatic mass, or CT examinations with malignant pancreatic mass. Each team included at least one radiologist, one data scientist, and one engineer. Pancreatic lesions were annotated by expert radiologists. CT examinations were distributed in balanced batches via a Health Data Hosting certified platform. Data were distributed into four batches, two for training, one for internal evaluation, and one for the external evaluation. Training used 83 % of the data from 14 centers and external evaluation used data from the other four centers. The metric (i.e., final score) used to rank the participants was a weighted average of mean sensitivity, mean precision and mean area under the curve. RESULTS: A total of 1037 abdominal CT examinations were divided into two training sets (including 500 and 232 CT examinations), an internal evaluation set (including 139 CT examinations), and an external evaluation set (including 166 CT examinations). The training sets were distributed on September 7 and October 13, 2023, and evaluation sets on October 15, 2023. Ten teams with a total of 93 members participated to the data challenge, with the best final score being 0.72. CONCLUSION: This SFR 2023 data challenge based on multicenter CT data suggests that the use of AI for pancreatic lesions detection is possible on real data, but the distinction between benign and malignant pancreatic lesions remains challenging.

Better than RECIST and Faster than iRECIST: Defining the Immunotherapy Progression Decision Score to Better Manage Progressive Tumors on Immunotherapy.

PURPOSE: The objective of the study is to propose the immunotherapy progression decision (iPD) score, a practical tool based on patient features that are available at the first evaluation of immunotherapy treatment, to help oncologists decide whether to continue the treatment or switch rapidly to another therapeutic line when facing a progressive disease patient at the first evaluation. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: This retrospective study included 107 patients with progressive disease at first evaluation according to RECIST 1.1. Clinical, radiological, and biological data at baseline and first evaluation were analyzed. An external validation set consisting of 31 patients with similar baseline characteristics was used for the validation of the score. RESULTS: Variables were analyzed in a univariate study. The iPD score was constructed using only independent variables, each considered as a worsening factor for the survival of patients. The patients were stratified in three groups: good prognosis (GP), poor prognosis (PP), and critical prognosis (CP). Each group showed significantly different survivals (GP: 11.4, PP: 4.4, CP: 2.3 months median overall survival, P < 0.001, log-rank test). Moreover, the iPD score was able to detect the pseudoprogressors better than other scores. On the validation set, CP patients had significantly worse survival than PP and GP patients (P < 0.05, log-rank test). CONCLUSIONS: The iPD score provides oncologists with a new evaluation, computable at first progression, to decide whether treatment should be continued (for the GP group), or immediately changed for the PP and CP groups. Further validation on larger cohorts is needed to prove its efficacy in clinical practice.