Cited by 6Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementAI in cancer detectionRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging

Exploring and validating the prognostic value of pathomics signatures and genomics in patients with cutaneous melanoma based on bioinformatics and deep learning

Li, Xiaoyuan, Yu, Xiaoqian, Tian, Duanliang, Liu, Yiran, Li, Ding·2023·Medical Physics

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cutaneous melanoma (CM) is the most common malignant tumor of the skin. Our study aimed to investigate the prognostic value of pathomics signatures for CM by combining pathomics and genomics. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to explore the potential application value of pathomics signatures. METHODS: Pathology full scans, clinical information, and genomics data for CM patients were downloaded from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database. Exploratory data analysis (EDA) was used to visualize patient characteristics. Genes related to a poorer prognosis were screened through differential analysis. Survival analysis was performed to assess the prognostic value of gene and pathomics signatures. Artificial neural network (ANN) models predicted prognosis using signatures and genes. Correlation analysis was used to explore signature-gene links. RESULTS: The clinical traits for 468 CM samples and the genomic data and pathology images for 471 CM samples were obtained from the TCGA database. The EDA results combined with multiple machine learning (ML) models suggested that the top 5 clinical traits in terms of importance were age, biopsy site, T stage, N stage and overall disease stage, and the eight ML models had a precision lower than 0.56. A total of 60 differentially expressed genes were obtained by comparing sequencing data. A total of 413 available quantitative signatures of each pathomics image were obtained with CellProfile software. The precision of the binary classification model based on pathomics signatures was 0.99, with a loss value of 1.7119e-04. The precision of the binary classification model based on differentially expressed genes was 0.98, with a loss value of 0.1101. The precision of the binary classification model based on pathomics signatures and differentially expressed genes was 0.97, with a loss value of 0.2088. The survival analyses showed that the survival rate of the high-risk group based on gene expression and pathomics signatures was significantly lower than that of the low-risk group. A total of 222 pathomics signatures and 51 differentially expressed genes were analyzed for survival with p-values of less than 0.05. There was a certain correlation between some pathomics signatures and differential gene expression involving ANO2, LINC00158, NDNF, ADAMTS15, and ADGRB3, etc. CONCLUSION: This study evaluated the prognostic significance of pathomics signatures and differentially expressed genes in CM patients. Three ANN models were developed, and all achieved accuracy rates higher than 97%. Specifically, the pathomics signature-based ANN model maintained a remarkable accuracy of 99%. These findings highlight the CellProfile + ANN model as an excellent choice for prognostic prediction in CM patients. Furthermore, our correlation analysis experimentally demonstrated a preliminary link between disease quantification and qualitative changes. Among various features, including M stage and treatments received, special attention should be given to age, biopsy site, T stage, N stage, and overall disease stage in CM patients.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/mp.16748

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Deep learning applied to digitized melanoma slides can stratify patients into risk categories comparable to or exceeding traditional histopathologic criteria.

    “Recent studies have shown that deep learning applied to digitized melanoma slides can stratify patients into risk categories comparable to or exceeding traditional histopathologic criteria, supporting its role in outcome prediction [49].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Li, X., Yu, X., Tian, D., Liu, Y., & Li, D.
Affiliations
  • Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University (CN)
  • Qingdao University (CN)
  • Weifang Medical University (CN)
  • Department of Traditional Chinese Medicine The affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University Qingdao Shandong China
Venue
Medical Physics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2023-09-18
Volume
50
Issue
11
Pages
7049-7059
ISSN
  • 0094-2405 (ISSN-L)
  • 2473-4209
OpenAlex
W4386840013
Cited by
6
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2
FWCI
0.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Medical Physics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Natural Science Foundation of China (82004128)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Keywords
cutaneous melanoma, pathomics, prognostic signature, differentially expressed genes, prognostic gene signature, survival analysis, artificial neural networks, TCGA, risk stratification, ANO2, ADAMTS15
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Melanoma, Cutaneous Malignant, Cutaneous Malignant Melanoma, Humans, Melanoma, Prognosis, Skin Neoplasms, Computational Biology, Genomics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review