Immunotherapy (IO) alone or in combination with chemotherapy (CT-IO) has become the standard of care for most patients with metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC). Nevertheless, 20-30% of patients do not benefit from these treatments facing a negative risk-benefit balance and the identification of reliable predictive factors for a better patients' selection is an important unmet need. In this retrospective single-centre analysis, patients with metastatic NSCLC treated with first line (CT)-IO between 2015 and 2021 were eligible. Clinical, pathological and laboratory data were retrieved. Primary aim was to identify the features predicting early progression (radiological progression or death within 3 months from treatment start) by artificial intelligence (AI) models. 201 patients were included: 121 IO (all PD-L1 ≥50%), 80 CT-IO (all PD-L1 <50%). 46% in IO group and 36% in CT-IO group were early progressors. Early progression correlated with poor performance status, elevated neutrophil percentage (>80%) and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (≥8), lower-range PD-L1 status (50%-75%, in IO only), use of steroids (in IO only), bone and liver metastases (in CT-IO) by a statistical exploratory data analysis. In IO only population, black-box models (Automated Machine Learning, AutoML) encompassing clinical, laboratory and pathological data reached an AUC of 0.82 in predicting early progression (best model: Voting Ensemble). White box tools (SHapley Additive exPlanations) paired with AutoML generated models increased the interpretability of the results despite slightly lower precision scores. Dimensionality reduction algorithms such as t-SNE (t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding) and SVM (Support Vector Machine) were applied on our dataset to rebalance sample size with feature list, obtaining a reliable pattern of cases distribution. Artificial intelligence models can predict trustworthy patterns of early progression in IO-treated patients. Pairing black box and white box methods is feasible and could increase robustness and interpretability of the results.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ogliari et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: