Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 25, 2025
Predictive Immune Modeling of Solid Tumors
Published on: February 25, 2020
Artificial intelligence-based prognostic model accurately predicts the survival of patients with diffuse large B-cell
Huilin Peng1, Mengmeng Su2, Xiang Guo3
1Department of Lymphatic Oncology, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou Institute of Medicine (HIM), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, 310022, China.
Background:
Diffuse large B-cell lymphomas (DLBCLs) display high molecular heterogeneity, but the International Prognostic Index (IPI) considers only clinical indicators and has not been updated to include molecular data. Therefore, we developed a widely applicable novel scoring system with molecular indicators screened by artificial intelligence (AI) that achieves accurate prognostic stratification and promotes individualized treatments.
Methods:
We retrospectively enrolled a cohort of 401 patients with DLBCL from our hospital, covering the period from January 2015 to January 2019. We included 22 variables in our analysis and assigned them weights using the random survival forest method to establish a new predictive model combining bidirectional long-short term memory (Bi-LSTM) and logistic hazard techniques. We compared the predictive performance of our "molecular-contained prognostic model" (McPM) and the IPI. In addition, we developed a simplified version of the McPM (sMcPM) to enhance its practical applicability in clinical settings. We also demonstrated the improved risk stratification capabilities of the sMcPM.
Results:
Our McPM showed superior predictive accuracy, as indicated by its high C-index and low integrated Brier score (IBS), for both overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The overall performance of the McPM was also better than that of the IPI based on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve fitting. We selected five key indicators, including extranodal involvement sites, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), MYC gene status, absolute monocyte count (AMC), and platelet count (PLT) to establish the sMcPM, which is more suitable for clinical applications. The sMcPM showed similar OS results (P < 0.0001 for both) to the IPI and significantly better PFS stratification results (P < 0.0001 for sMcPM vs. P = 0.44 for IPI).
Conclusions:
Our new McPM, including both clinical and molecular variables, showed superior overall stratification performance to the IPI, rendering it more suitable for the molecular era. Moreover, our sMcPM may become a widely used and effective stratification tool to guide individual precision treatments and drive new drug development.
