Development of a Novel Intra-Operative Score to Record Diseases' Anatomic Fingerprints (ANAFI Score) for the Prediction of Complete Cytoreduction in Advanced-Stage Ovarian Cancer by Using Machine Learning and Explainable Artificial Intelligence.

anatomic fingerprints complete cytoreduction epithelial ovarian cancer explainble artificial intelligence intra-operative mapping machine learning peritoneal carcinomatosis index

Journal

Cancers
ISSN: 2072-6694
Titre abrégé: Cancers (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101526829

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
03 Feb 2023
Historique:
received: 02 12 2022
revised: 30 01 2023
accepted: 31 01 2023
entrez: 11 2 2023
pubmed: 12 2 2023
medline: 12 2 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The Peritoneal Carcinomatosis Index (PCI) and the Intra-operative Mapping for Ovarian Cancer (IMO), to a lesser extent, have been universally validated in advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) to describe the extent of peritoneal dissemination and are proven to be powerful predictors of the surgical outcome with an added sensitivity of assessment at laparotomy of around 70%. This leaves room for improvement because the two-dimensional anatomic scoring model fails to reflect the patient's real anatomy, as seen by a surgeon. We hypothesized that tumor dissemination in specific anatomic locations can be more predictive of complete cytoreduction (CC0) and survival than PCI and IMO tools in EOC patients. (2) Methods: We analyzed prospectively data collected from 508 patients with FIGO-stage IIIB-IVB EOC who underwent cytoreductive surgery between January 2014 and December 2019 at a UK tertiary center. We adapted the structured ESGO ovarian cancer report to provide detailed information on the patterns of tumor dissemination (cancer anatomic fingerprints). We employed the extreme gradient boost (XGBoost) to model only the variables referring to the EOC disseminated patterns, to create an intra-operative score and judge the predictive power of the score alone for complete cytoreduction (CC0). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were then used for performance comparison between the new score and the existing PCI and IMO tools. We applied the Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) framework to support the feature selection of the narrated cancer fingerprints and provide global and local explainability. Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression. (3) Results: An intra-operative disease score was developed based on specific weights assigned to the cancer anatomic fingerprints. The scores range from 0 to 24. The XGBoost predicted CC0 resection (area under curve (AUC) = 0.88 CI = 0.854-0.913) with high accuracy. Organ-specific dissemination on the small bowel mesentery, large bowel serosa, and diaphragmatic peritoneum were the most crucial features globally. When added to the composite model, the novel score slightly enhanced its predictive value (AUC = 0.91, CI = 0.849-0.963). We identified a "turning point", ≤5, that increased the probability of CC0. Using conventional logistic regression, the new score was superior to the PCI and IMO scores for the prediction of CC0 (AUC = 0.81 vs. 0.73 and 0.67, respectively). In multivariate Cox analysis, a 1-point increase in the new intra-operative score was associated with poorer progression-free (HR: 1.06; 95% CI: 1.03-1.09,

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
The Peritoneal Carcinomatosis Index (PCI) and the Intra-operative Mapping for Ovarian Cancer (IMO), to a lesser extent, have been universally validated in advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) to describe the extent of peritoneal dissemination and are proven to be powerful predictors of the surgical outcome with an added sensitivity of assessment at laparotomy of around 70%. This leaves room for improvement because the two-dimensional anatomic scoring model fails to reflect the patient's real anatomy, as seen by a surgeon. We hypothesized that tumor dissemination in specific anatomic locations can be more predictive of complete cytoreduction (CC0) and survival than PCI and IMO tools in EOC patients. (2) Methods: We analyzed prospectively data collected from 508 patients with FIGO-stage IIIB-IVB EOC who underwent cytoreductive surgery between January 2014 and December 2019 at a UK tertiary center. We adapted the structured ESGO ovarian cancer report to provide detailed information on the patterns of tumor dissemination (cancer anatomic fingerprints). We employed the extreme gradient boost (XGBoost) to model only the variables referring to the EOC disseminated patterns, to create an intra-operative score and judge the predictive power of the score alone for complete cytoreduction (CC0). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were then used for performance comparison between the new score and the existing PCI and IMO tools. We applied the Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) framework to support the feature selection of the narrated cancer fingerprints and provide global and local explainability. Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression. (3) Results: An intra-operative disease score was developed based on specific weights assigned to the cancer anatomic fingerprints. The scores range from 0 to 24. The XGBoost predicted CC0 resection (area under curve (AUC) = 0.88 CI = 0.854-0.913) with high accuracy. Organ-specific dissemination on the small bowel mesentery, large bowel serosa, and diaphragmatic peritoneum were the most crucial features globally. When added to the composite model, the novel score slightly enhanced its predictive value (AUC = 0.91, CI = 0.849-0.963). We identified a "turning point", ≤5, that increased the probability of CC0. Using conventional logistic regression, the new score was superior to the PCI and IMO scores for the prediction of CC0 (AUC = 0.81 vs. 0.73 and 0.67, respectively). In multivariate Cox analysis, a 1-point increase in the new intra-operative score was associated with poorer progression-free (HR: 1.06; 95% CI: 1.03-1.09,

Identifiants

pubmed: 36765924
pii: cancers15030966
doi: 10.3390/cancers15030966
pmc: PMC9913185
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Références

Anticancer Res. 2021 Jun;41(6):3059-3065
pubmed: 34083298
Gynecol Oncol. 2009 Jul;114(1):26-31
pubmed: 19395008
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017 Jun;213:123-139
pubmed: 28457647
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2016 Sep;294(3):607-14
pubmed: 27040418
CA Cancer J Clin. 2019 Jan;69(1):7-34
pubmed: 30620402
J Clin Oncol. 2005 Dec 1;23(34):8802-11
pubmed: 16314640
Gynecol Oncol. 2016 May;141(2):264-270
pubmed: 26975900
Gynecol Oncol. 2014 Jun;133(3):401-4
pubmed: 24878391
J Pers Med. 2022 Apr 10;12(4):
pubmed: 35455723
Zentralbl Gynakol. 2003 Mar-Apr;125(3-4):129-35
pubmed: 12961105
Gynecol Oncol. 2019 Nov;155(2):207-212
pubmed: 31481247
Gynecol Oncol. 2022 Sep 7;:
pubmed: 36088169
Nat Mach Intell. 2020 Jan;2(1):56-67
pubmed: 32607472
J Clin Oncol. 2002 Mar 1;20(5):1248-59
pubmed: 11870167
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2017 May;27(4):675-683
pubmed: 28328580
N Engl J Med. 2010 Sep 2;363(10):943-53
pubmed: 20818904
Surg Oncol. 2019 Jun;29:120-125
pubmed: 31196475
Int J Surg Oncol. 2016;2016:2495131
pubmed: 27006828
Gynecol Oncol. 2007 Feb;104(2):480-90
pubmed: 17166564
Ann Surg Oncol. 2016 May;23(5):1454-60
pubmed: 26564242
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2013 Nov;23(9):1699-703
pubmed: 24100589
J Clin Oncol. 2007 Aug 20;25(24):3621-7
pubmed: 17704411
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Dec;197(6):676.e1-7
pubmed: 18060979
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015 Jan;25(1):135-44
pubmed: 25423317
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2018 Feb;28(2):316-322
pubmed: 29324538
J Clin Med. 2022 Jan 18;11(3):
pubmed: 35159927
J Gynecol Oncol. 2020 Mar;31(2):e14
pubmed: 31912672
Radiol Med. 2020 Aug;125(8):770-776
pubmed: 32239470
Gynecol Oncol. 2007 Oct;107(1):99-106
pubmed: 17602726
J Invest Surg. 2021 Sep;34(9):1023-1030
pubmed: 32148117
Accid Anal Prev. 2020 Mar;136:105405
pubmed: 31864931
Gynecol Oncol. 2016 Mar;140(3):430-5
pubmed: 26691220
Ginekol Pol. 2016;87(5):326-32
pubmed: 27304646
Gynecol Oncol. 2019 Oct;155(1):58-62
pubmed: 31402165
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2003 Feb;29(1):69-73
pubmed: 12559080
Gynecol Oncol. 2006 Dec;103(3):1083-90
pubmed: 16890277
Cancer. 2009 Mar 15;115(6):1234-44
pubmed: 19189349
Nat Biomed Eng. 2018 Oct;2(10):749-760
pubmed: 31001455
J Clin Med. 2021 Dec 17;10(24):
pubmed: 34945222
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019 Sep;45(9):1619-1624
pubmed: 31014987
Anticancer Res. 2022 Jan;42(1):115-124
pubmed: 34969717
Cancer Treat Res. 1996;82:359-74
pubmed: 8849962
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020 Jun;30(6):845-852
pubmed: 32341114
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2021 Nov;47(11):2915-2924
pubmed: 34053777
Ann Surg Oncol. 2006 Aug;13(8):1156-61
pubmed: 16791447
Cancers (Basel). 2022 Jul 15;14(14):
pubmed: 35884506
Ann Surg Oncol. 2021 Jan;28(1):244-251
pubmed: 32472412
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018 Jan;44(1):163-169
pubmed: 29198495
Comput Biol Med. 2011 Aug;41(8):575-86
pubmed: 21703607
Ann Surg Oncol. 2016 Feb;23(2):434-42
pubmed: 26542592
J Geriatr Oncol. 2022 Aug 18;:
pubmed: 35989185
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2021 Sep;31(9):1199-1206
pubmed: 34407962
Gynecol Oncol. 2001 Sep;82(3):489-97
pubmed: 11520145

Auteurs

Alexandros Laios (A)

Department of Gynaecologic Oncology, St James's University Hospital, Leeds LS9 7TF, UK.

Evangelos Kalampokis (E)

Information Systems Lab, Department of Business Administration, University of Macedonia, 54636 Thessaloniki, Greece.

Racheal Johnson (R)

Department of Gynaecologic Oncology, St James's University Hospital, Leeds LS9 7TF, UK.

Sarika Munot (S)

Department of Gynaecologic Oncology, St James's University Hospital, Leeds LS9 7TF, UK.

Amudha Thangavelu (A)

Department of Gynaecologic Oncology, St James's University Hospital, Leeds LS9 7TF, UK.

Richard Hutson (R)

Department of Gynaecologic Oncology, St James's University Hospital, Leeds LS9 7TF, UK.

Tim Broadhead (T)

Department of Gynaecologic Oncology, St James's University Hospital, Leeds LS9 7TF, UK.

Georgios Theophilou (G)

Department of Gynaecologic Oncology, St James's University Hospital, Leeds LS9 7TF, UK.

David Nugent (D)

Department of Gynaecologic Oncology, St James's University Hospital, Leeds LS9 7TF, UK.

Diederick De Jong (D)

Department of Gynaecologic Oncology, St James's University Hospital, Leeds LS9 7TF, UK.

Classifications MeSH