External Validation of a Digital Pathology-based Multimodal Artificial Intelligence Architecture in the NRG/RTOG 9902 Phase 3 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Accurate risk stratification is critical to guide management decisions in localized prostate cancer (PCa). Previously, we had developed and validated a multimodal artificial intelligence (MMAI) model generated from digital histopathology and clinical features. Here, we externally validate this model on men with high-risk or locally advanced PCa treated and followed as part of a phase 3 randomized control trial. OBJECTIVE: To externally validate the MMAI model on men with high-risk or locally advanced PCa treated and followed as part of a phase 3 randomized control trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Our validation cohort included 318 localized high-risk PCa patients from NRG/RTOG 9902 with available histopathology (337 [85%] of the 397 patients enrolled into the trial had available slides, of which 19 [5.6%] failed due to poor image quality). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Two previously locked prognostic MMAI models were validated for their intended endpoint: distant metastasis (DM) and PCa-specific mortality (PCSM). Individual clinical factors and the number of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high-risk features served as comparators. Subdistribution hazard ratio (sHR) was reported per standard deviation increase of the score with corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) using Fine-Gray or Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The DM and PCSM MMAI algorithms were significantly and independently associated with the risk of DM (sHR [95% CI] = 2.33 [1.60-3.38], p < 0.001) and PCSM, respectively (sHR [95% CI] = 3.54 [2.38-5.28], p < 0.001) when compared against other prognostic clinical factors and NCCN high-risk features. The lower 75% of patients by DM MMAI had estimated 5- and 10-yr DM rates of 4% and 7%, and the highest quartile had average 5- and 10-yr DM rates of 19% and 32%, respectively (p < 0.001). Similar results were observed for the PCSM MMAI algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: We externally validated the prognostic ability of MMAI models previously developed among men with localized high-risk disease. MMAI prognostic models further risk stratify beyond the clinical and pathological variables for DM and PCSM in a population of men already at a high risk for disease progression. This study provides evidence for consistent validation of our deep learning MMAI models to improve prognostication and enable more informed decision-making for patient care. PATIENT SUMMARY: This paper presents a novel approach using images from pathology slides along with clinical variables to validate artificial intelligence (computer-generated) prognostic models. When implemented, clinicians can offer a more personalized and tailored prognostic discussion for men with localized prostate cancer.

Artificial Intelligence Predictive Model for Hormone Therapy Use in Prostate Cancer.

Background: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with radiotherapy can benefit patients with localized prostate cancer. However, ADT can negatively impact quality of life and there remain no validated predictive models to guide its use. Methods: Digital pathology image and clinical data from pre-treatment prostate tissue from 5,727 patients enrolled on five phase III randomized trials treated with radiotherapy +/- ADT were used to develop and validate an artificial intelligence (AI)-derived predictive model to assess ADT benefit with the primary endpoint of distant metastasis. After the model was locked, validation was performed on NRG/RTOG 9408 (n = 1,594) that randomized men to radiotherapy +/- 4 months of ADT. Fine-Gray regression and restricted mean survival times were used to assess the interaction between treatment and predictive model and within predictive model positive and negative subgroup treatment effects. Results: In the NRG/RTOG 9408 validation cohort (14.9 years of median follow-up), ADT significantly improved time to distant metastasis (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR] = 0.64, 95%CI [0.45-0.90], p = 0.01). The predictive model-treatment interaction was significant (p-interaction = 0.01). In predictive model positive patients (n = 543, 34%), ADT significantly reduced the risk of distant metastasis compared to radiotherapy alone (sHR = 0.34, 95%CI [0.19-0.63], p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between treatment arms in the predictive model negative subgroup (n = 1,051, 66%; sHR = 0.92, 95%CI [0.59-1.43], p = 0.71). Conclusions: Our data, derived and validated from completed randomized phase III trials, show that an AI-based predictive model was able to identify prostate cancer patients, with predominately intermediate-risk disease, who are likely to benefit from short-term ADT.

Artificial Intelligence Predictive Model for Hormone Therapy Use in Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with radiotherapy can benefit patients with localized prostate cancer. However, ADT can negatively impact quality of life, and there remain no validated predictive models to guide its use. METHODS: We used digital pathology images from pretreatment prostate tissue and clinical data from 5727 patients enrolled in five phase 3 randomized trials, in which treatment was radiotherapy with or without ADT, as our data source to develop and validate an artificial intelligence (AI)­derived predictive patient-specific model that would determine which patients would develop the primary end point of distant metastasis. The model used baseline data to provide a binary output that a given patient will likely benefit from ADT or not. After the model was locked, validation was performed using data from NRG Oncology/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 9408 (n=1594), a trial that randomly assigned men to radiotherapy plus or minus 4 months of ADT. Fine­Gray regression and restricted mean survival times were used to assess the interaction between treatment and the predictive model and within predictive model­positive, i.e., benefited from ADT, and ­negative subgroup treatment effects. RESULTS: Overall, in the NRG/RTOG 9408 validation cohort (14.9 years of median follow-up), ADT significantly improved time to distant metastasis. Of these enrolled patients, 543 (34%) were model positive, and ADT significantly reduced the risk of distant metastasis compared with radiotherapy alone. Of 1051 patients who were model negative, ADT did not provide benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Our AI-based predictive model was able to identify patients with a predominantly intermediate risk for prostate cancer likely to benefit from short-term ADT. (Supported by a grant [U10CA180822] from NRG Oncology Statistical and Data Management Center, a grant [UG1CA189867] from NCI Community Oncology Research Program, a grant [U10CA180868] from NRG Oncology Operations, and a grant [U24CA196067] from NRG Specimen Bank from the National Cancer Institute and by Artera, Inc. ClinicalTrials.gov numbers NCT00767286, NCT00002597, NCT00769548, NCT00005044, and NCT00033631.)

Prostate cancer therapy personalization via multi-modal deep learning on randomized phase III clinical trials.

Prostate cancer is the most frequent cancer in men and a leading cause of cancer death. Determining a patient's optimal therapy is a challenge, where oncologists must select a therapy with the highest likelihood of success and the lowest likelihood of toxicity. International standards for prognostication rely on non-specific and semi-quantitative tools, commonly leading to over- and under-treatment. Tissue-based molecular biomarkers have attempted to address this, but most have limited validation in prospective randomized trials and expensive processing costs, posing substantial barriers to widespread adoption. There remains a significant need for accurate and scalable tools to support therapy personalization. Here we demonstrate prostate cancer therapy personalization by predicting long-term, clinically relevant outcomes using a multimodal deep learning architecture and train models using clinical data and digital histopathology from prostate biopsies. We train and validate models using five phase III randomized trials conducted across hundreds of clinical centers. Histopathological data was available for 5654 of 7764 randomized patients (71%) with a median follow-up of 11.4 years. Compared to the most common risk-stratification tool-risk groups developed by the National Cancer Center Network (NCCN)-our models have superior discriminatory performance across all endpoints, ranging from 9.2% to 14.6% relative improvement in a held-out validation set. This artificial intelligence-based tool improves prognostication over standard tools and allows oncologists to computationally predict the likeliest outcomes of specific patients to determine optimal treatment. Outfitted with digital scanners and internet access, any clinic could offer such capabilities, enabling global access to therapy personalization.

Cell-Free DNA Detection of Tumor Mutations in Heterogeneous, Localized Prostate Cancer Via Targeted, Multiregion Sequencing.

Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) may allow for minimally invasive identification of biologically relevant genomic alterations and genetically distinct tumor subclones. Although existing biomarkers may detect localized prostate cancer, additional strategies interrogating genomic heterogeneity are necessary for identifying and monitoring aggressive disease. In this study, we aimed to evaluate whether circulating tumor DNA can detect genomic alterations present in multiple regions of localized prostate tumor tissue. METHODS: Low-pass whole-genome and targeted sequencing with a machine-learning guided 2.5-Mb targeted panel were used to identify single nucleotide variants, small insertions and deletions (indels), and copy-number alterations in cfDNA. The majority of this study focuses on the subset of 21 patients with localized disease, although 45 total individuals were evaluated, including 15 healthy controls and nine men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Plasma cfDNA was barcoded with duplex unique molecular identifiers. For localized cases, matched tumor tissue was collected from multiple regions (one to nine samples per patient) for comparison. RESULTS: Somatic tumor variants present in heterogeneous tumor foci from patients with localized disease were detected in cfDNA, and cfDNA mutational burden was found to track with disease severity. Somatic tissue alterations were identified in cfDNA, including nonsynonymous variants in FOXA1, PTEN, MED12, and ATM. Detection of these overlapping variants was associated with seminal vesicle invasion (P = .019) and with the number of variants initially found in the matched tumor tissue samples (P = .0005). CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate the potential of targeted cfDNA sequencing to detect somatic tissue alterations in heterogeneous, localized prostate cancer, especially in a setting where matched tumor tissue may be unavailable (ie, active surveillance or treatment monitoring).

Cell-free DNA concentration and fragment size as a biomarker for prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed neoplasm in American men. Although existing biomarkers may detect localized prostate cancer, additional strategies are necessary for improving detection and identifying aggressive disease that may require further intervention. One promising, minimally invasive biomarker is cell-free DNA (cfDNA), which consist of short DNA fragments released into circulation by dying or lysed cells that may reflect underlying cancer. Here we investigated whether differences in cfDNA concentration and cfDNA fragment size could improve the sensitivity for detecting more advanced and aggressive prostate cancer. This study included 268 individuals: 34 healthy controls, 112 men with localized prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP), and 122 men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Plasma cfDNA concentration and fragment size were quantified with the Qubit 3.0 and the 2100 Bioanalyzer. The potential relationship between cfDNA concentration or fragment size and localized or mCRPC prostate cancer was evaluated with descriptive statistics, logistic regression, and area under the curve analysis with cross-validation. Plasma cfDNA concentrations were elevated in mCRPC patients in comparison to localized disease (OR5ng/mL = 1.34, P = 0.027) or to being a control (OR5ng/mL = 1.69, P = 0.034). Decreased average fragment size was associated with an increased risk of localized disease compared to controls (OR5bp = 0.77, P = 0.0008). This study suggests that while cfDNA concentration can identify mCRPC patients, it is unable to distinguish between healthy individuals and patients with localized prostate cancer. In addition to PSA, average cfDNA fragment size may be an alternative that can differentiate between healthy individuals and those with localized disease, but the low sensitivity and specificity results in an imperfect diagnostic marker. While quantification of cfDNA may provide a quick, cost-effective approach to help guide treatment decisions in advanced disease, its use is limited in the setting of localized prostate cancer.

A machine learning approach to optimizing cell-free DNA sequencing panels: with an application to prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cell-free DNA's (cfDNA) use as a biomarker in cancer is challenging due to genetic heterogeneity of malignancies and rarity of tumor-derived molecules. Here we describe and demonstrate a novel machine-learning guided panel design strategy for improving the detection of tumor variants in cfDNA. Using this approach, we first generated a model to classify and score candidate variants for inclusion on a prostate cancer targeted sequencing panel. We then used this panel to screen tumor variants from prostate cancer patients with localized disease in both in silico and hybrid capture settings. METHODS: Whole Genome Sequence (WGS) data from 550 prostate tumors was analyzed to build a targeted sequencing panel of single point and small (< 200 bp) indel mutations, which was subsequently screened in silico against prostate tumor sequences from 5 patients to assess performance against commonly used alternative panel designs. The panel's ability to detect tumor-derived cfDNA variants was then assessed using prospectively collected cfDNA and tumor foci from a test set 18 prostate cancer patients with localized disease undergoing radical proctectomy. RESULTS: The panel generated from this approach identified as top candidates mutations in known driver genes (e.g. HRAS) and prostate cancer related transcription factor binding sites (e.g. MYC, AR). It outperformed two commonly used designs in detecting somatic mutations found in the cfDNA of 5 prostate cancer patients when analyzed in an in silico setting. Additionally, hybrid capture and 2500X sequencing of cfDNA molecules using the panel resulted in detection of tumor variants in all 18 patients of a test set, where 15 of the 18 patients had detected variants found in multiple foci. CONCLUSION: Machine learning-prioritized targeted sequencing panels may prove useful for broad and sensitive variant detection in the cfDNA of heterogeneous diseases. This strategy has implications for disease detection and monitoring when applied to the cfDNA isolated from prostate cancer patients.