Predicting Neoadjuvant Treatment Response in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Using Machine Learning
Shristi Bhattarai1, Geetanjali Saini1, Hongxiao Li2
1Department of Clinical and Diagnostic Sciences, School of Health Professions, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294, USA.
Background:
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is the standard treatment for early-stage triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). The primary endpoint of NAC is a pathological complete response (pCR). NAC results in pCR in only 30-40% of TNBC patients. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), Ki67 and phosphohistone H3 (pH3) are a few known biomarkers to predict NAC response. Currently, systematic evaluation of the combined value of these biomarkers in predicting NAC response is lacking. In this study, the predictive value of markers derived from H&E and IHC stained biopsy tissue was comprehensively evaluated using a supervised machine learning (ML)-based approach. Identifying predictive biomarkers could help guide therapeutic decisions by enabling precise stratification of TNBC patients into responders and partial or non-responders.
Methods:
Serial sections from core needle biopsies (n = 76) were stained with H&E and immunohistochemically for the Ki67 and pH3 markers, followed by whole-slide image (WSI) generation. The serial section stains in H&E stain, Ki67 and pH3 markers formed WSI triplets for each patient. The resulting WSI triplets were co-registered with H&E WSIs serving as the reference. Separate mask region-based CNN (MRCNN) models were trained with annotated H&E, Ki67 and pH3 images for detecting tumor cells, stromal and intratumoral TILs (sTILs and tTILs), Ki67+, and pH3+ cells. Top image patches with a high density of cells of interest were identified as hotspots. Best classifiers for NAC response prediction were identified by training multiple ML models and evaluating their performance by accuracy, area under curve, and confusion matrix analyses.
Results:
Highest prediction accuracy was achieved when hotspot regions were identified by tTIL counts and each hotspot was represented by measures of tTILs, sTILs, tumor cells, Ki67+, and pH3+ features. Regardless of the hotspot selection metric, a complementary use of multiple histological features (tTILs, sTILs) and molecular biomarkers (Ki67 and pH3) resulted in top ranked performance at the patient level.
Conclusions:
Overall, our results emphasize that prediction models for NAC response should be based on biomarkers in combination rather than in isolation. Our study provides compelling evidence to support the use of ML-based models to predict NAC response in patients with TNBC.
