Head & neck · 2025
Artificial Intelligence Measured Tumor Burden and Pre-Treatment Circulating Tumor DNA in Human Papilloma Virus-Associated Oropharynx Cancer.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bakhtiar Mina, Ye Zezhong, Schoenfeld Jonathan D, Mohammadi Homan, Guenette Jeffrey P, Rettig Eleni M, Hanna Glenn J, Kann Benjamin H
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI)-based imaging analysis and circulating tumor-associated DNA (ctDNA) are both being used diagnostically in HPV-driven oropharynx squamous cell carcinoma (HPV-OPSCC). We evaluated associations between AI-measured tumor burden and ctDNA.
METHODS: We analyzed 170 patients treated definitively for HPV-OPSCC. All had pre-treatment serum tumor-tissue modified viral (TTMV) ctDNA levels. An AI algorithm measured tumor and lymph nodes on CT scans. Linear regressions detected associations between ctDNA (fragments/mL) and automated volumes, clinical tumor (T) and nodal (N) stage, and disease factors.
RESULTS: Automated tumor volume (coeff = 39.43, p < 0.001), nodal volume (coeff = 39.54, p < 0.001), T stage (coeff = 1031.09, p = 0.009), and N stage (coeff = 1840, p = 0.018) were associated with ctDNA. On multivariable analysis, tumor (coeff = 34.79, p = 0.001) and nodal volumes (coeff = 24.68, p = 0.022) were associated with ctDNA; T and N stage were not.
CONCLUSIONS: Automated volumetrics are independently and more strongly associated with ctDNA, compared with clinical stage. Automated volumetrics provide a practical correlate to ctDNA.
METHODS: We analyzed 170 patients treated definitively for HPV-OPSCC. All had pre-treatment serum tumor-tissue modified viral (TTMV) ctDNA levels. An AI algorithm measured tumor and lymph nodes on CT scans. Linear regressions detected associations between ctDNA (fragments/mL) and automated volumes, clinical tumor (T) and nodal (N) stage, and disease factors.
RESULTS: Automated tumor volume (coeff = 39.43, p < 0.001), nodal volume (coeff = 39.54, p < 0.001), T stage (coeff = 1031.09, p = 0.009), and N stage (coeff = 1840, p = 0.018) were associated with ctDNA. On multivariable analysis, tumor (coeff = 34.79, p = 0.001) and nodal volumes (coeff = 24.68, p = 0.022) were associated with ctDNA; T and N stage were not.
CONCLUSIONS: Automated volumetrics are independently and more strongly associated with ctDNA, compared with clinical stage. Automated volumetrics provide a practical correlate to ctDNA.