Metastasis is the primary cause of cancer mortality, and cancer frequently metastasizes to the liver. It is not clear whether liver immune tolerance mechanisms contribute to cancer outcomes. We report that liver metastases diminish immunotherapy efficacy systemically in patients and preclinical models. Patients with liver metastases derive limited benefit from immunotherapy independent of other established biomarkers of response. In multiple mouse models, we show that liver metastases siphon activated CD8+ T cells from systemic circulation. Within the liver, activated antigen-specific Fas+CD8+ T cells undergo apoptosis following their interaction with FasL+CD11b+F4/80+ monocyte-derived macrophages. Consequently, liver metastases create a systemic immune desert in preclinical models. Similarly, patients with liver metastases have reduced peripheral T cell numbers and diminished tumoral T cell diversity and function. In preclinical models, liver-directed radiotherapy eliminates immunosuppressive hepatic macrophages, increases hepatic T cell survival and reduces hepatic siphoning of T cells. Thus, liver metastases co-opt host peripheral tolerance mechanisms to cause acquired immunotherapy resistance through CD8+ T cell deletion, and the combination of liver-directed radiotherapy and immunotherapy could promote systemic antitumor immunity. Liver metastases reduce clinical and preclinical immune-checkpoint inhibitor efficacy through hepatic siphoning of circulating activated CD8+ T cells, but therapeutic benefit can be improved by combining immunotherapy with liver-directed radiotherapy.

Liver metastasis restrains immunotherapy efficacy via macrophage-mediated T cell elimination.

This paper reviews state-of-the-art research solutions across the spectrum of medical imaging informatics, discusses clinical translation, and provides future directions for advancing clinical practice. More specifically, it summarizes advances in medical imaging acquisition technologies for different modalities, highlighting the necessity for efficient medical data management strategies in the context of AI in big healthcare data analytics. It then provides a synopsis of contemporary and emerging algorithmic methods for disease classification and organ/ tissue segmentation, focusing on AI and deep learning architectures that have already become the de facto approach. The clinical benefits of in-silico modelling advances linked with evolving 3D reconstruction and visualization applications are further documented. Concluding, integrative analytics approaches driven by associate research branches highlighted in this study promise to revolutionize imaging informatics as known today across the healthcare continuum for both radiology and digital pathology applications. The latter, is projected to enable informed, more accurate diagnosis, timely prognosis, and effective treatment planning, underpinning precision medicine.

/pdf/ai-in-medical-imaging-informatics-current-challenges-and-4ia48alpof.pdf

AI in Medical Imaging Informatics: Current Challenges and Future Directions

Radiomics leverages existing image datasets to provide non-visible data extraction via image post-processing, with the aim of identifying prognostic and predictive imaging features at a sub-region of interest level. However, the application of radiomics is hampered by several challenges such as lack of image acquisition/analysis method standardization, impeding generalizability. As of yet, radiomics remains intriguing, but not clinically validated. We aimed to test the feasibility of a non-custom-constructed platform for disseminating existing large, standardized databases across institutions for promoting radiomics studies. Hence, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center organized two public radiomics challenges in head and neck radiation oncology domain. This was done in conjunction with MICCAI 2016 satellite symposium using Kaggle-in-Class, a machine-learning and predictive analytics platform. We drew on clinical data matched to radiomics data derived from diagnostic contrast-enhanced computed tomography images in a dataset of 315 patients with oropharyngeal cancer. Contestants were tasked to develop models for (i) classifying patients according to their human papillomavirus status, or (ii) predicting local tumor recurrence, following radiotherapy. Data were split into training, and test sets. Seventeen teams from various professional domains participated in one or both of the challenges. This review paper was based on the contestants’ feedback; provided by 8 contestants only (47%). Six contestants (75%) incorporated extracted radiomics features into their predictive model building, either alone (n=5; 62.5%), as was the case with the winner of the “HPV” challenge, or in conjunction with matched clinical attributes (n=2; 25%). Only 23% of contestants, notably, including the winner of the “local recurrence” challenge, built their model relying solely on clinical data. In addition to the value of the integration of machine learning into clinical decision-making, our experience sheds light on challenges in sharing and directing existing datasets towards clinical applications of radiomics, including hyper-dimensionality of the clinical/imaging data attributes. Our experience may help guide researchers to create a framework for sharing and reuse of already published data that we believe will ultimately accelerate the pace of clinical applications of radiomics; both in challenge or clinical settings.

/pdf/machine-learning-applications-in-head-and-neck-radiation-5acdroa25g.pdf

Machine Learning Applications in Head and Neck Radiation Oncology: Lessons From Open-Source Radiomics Challenges.

Use of metrics to quantify IMRT and VMAT treatment plan complexity: A systematic review and perspectives

Emergence of big data analytics resource systems (BDARSs) as a part of routine practice in Radiation Oncology is on the horizon. Gradually, individual researchers, vendors, and professional societies are leading initiatives to create and demonstrate use of automated systems. What are the implications for design of clinical trials, as these systems emerge? Gold standard, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have high internal validity for the patients and settings fitting constraints of the trial, but also have limitations including: reproducibility, generalizability to routine practice, infrequent external validation, selection bias, characterization of confounding factors, ethics, and use for rare events. BDARS present opportunities to augment and extend RCTs. Preliminary modeling using single- and muti-institutional BDARS may lead to better design and less cost. Standardizations in data elements, clinical processes, and nomenclatures used to decrease variability and increase veracity needed for automation and multi-institutional data pooling in BDARS also support ability to add clinical validation phases to clinical trial design and increase participation. However, volume and variety in BDARS present other technical, policy, and conceptual challenges including applicable statistical concepts, cloud-based technologies. In this summary, we will examine both the opportunities and the challenges for use of big data in design of clinical trials.

/pdf/big-data-in-designing-clinical-trials-opportunities-and-2hnaoq3sqi.pdf

Big Data in Designing Clinical Trials: Opportunities and Challenges.

Although large volumes of information are entered into our electronic health care records, radiation oncology information systems and treatment planning systems on a daily basis, the goal of extracting and using this big data has been slow to emerge. Development of strategies to meet this goal is aided by examining issues with a data farming instead of a data mining conceptualization. Using this model, a vision of key data elements, clinical process changes, technology issues and solutions, and role for professional societies is presented. With a better view of technology, process and standardization factors, definition and prioritization of efforts can be more effectively directed.

Sherry L. Machnak

Papers

The big data effort in radiation oncology: Data mining or data farming?