BioCOMPASS: Integrating Biomarkers into Transformer-Based Immunotherapy Response Prediction
Organizations: University of York, UK
Abstract
Datasets used in immunotherapy response prediction are typically small in size, as well as diverse in cancer type, drug administered, and sequencer used. Models often drop in performance when tested on patient cohorts that are not included in the training process. Recent work has shown that transformer-based models along with self-supervised learning show better generalisation performance than threshold-based biomarkers, but is still suboptimal. We present BioCOMPASS, an extension of a transformer-based model called COMPASS, that integrates biomarkers and treatment information to further improve its generalisability. Instead of feeding biomarker data as input, we built loss components to align them with the model's intermediate representations. We found that components such as treatment gating and pathway consistency loss improved generalisability when evaluated with Leave-one-cohort-out, Leave-one-cancer-type-out and Leave-one-treatment-out strategies. Results show that building components that exploit biomarker and treatment information can help in generalisability of immunotherapy response prediction. Careful curation of additional components that leverage complementary clinical information and domain knowledge represents a promising direction for future research.
Figures & tables
| Cohorts | Model | Accuracy | ROC-AUC | F1 | Precision | Recall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All | C | 63.10 ± 5.43 | 70.99 ± 2.88 | 46.65 ± 2.15 | 48.33 ± 6.24 | 56.93 ± 6.51 |
| BC | 70.00 ± 1.76 | 73.58 ± 1.29 | 54.01 ± 2.81 | 56.00 ± 2.64 | 58.55 ± 6.55 | |
| Small (<50) | C | 63.03 ± 6.15 | 72.05 ± 4.30 | 39.55 ± 3.98 | 40.82 ± 8.86 | 51.88 ± 3.91 |
| BC | 69.77 ± 1.86 | 74.44 ± 2.46 | 52.93 ± 1.67 | 52.51 ± 4.30 | 61.95 ± 6.96 | |
| Large (>50) | C | 63.18 ± 6.74 | 69.94 ± 2.75 | 53.74 ± 6.33 | 55.84 ± 6.25 | 61.98 ± 15.36 |
| BC | 70.24 ± 4.84 | 72.72 ± 0.80 | 55.08 ± 3.96 | 59.48 ± 5.83 | 55.14 ± 9.82 |
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Cohort | Cancer Type | Drug | Number of Samples | Size Category |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mariathasan et al. (2018) | BLCA | Atezolizumab | 298 | Large (>50) |
| McDermott et al. (2018) | KIRC | Atezolizumab | 247 | Large (>50) |
| Liu et al. (2019) | SKCM | Nivolumab | 121 | Large (>50) |
| Gide et al. (2019) | SKCM | Nivolumab | 73 | Large (>50) |
| Riaz et al. (2017) | SKCM | Nivolumab | 49 | Small (<50) |
| Kim et al. (2018) | STAD | Pembrolizumab | 45 | Small (<50) |
| Config | Acc (%) | AUC (%) | F1 (%) | Prec (%) | Recall (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No Gating | 72.13 ± 3.32 | 64.16 ± 4.52 | 48.23 ± 5.07 | 51.07 ± 6.48 | 58.65 ± 8.37 |
| No Pathway | 72.24 ± 2.88 | 67.53 ± 3.51 | 52.05 ± 3.74 | 53.96 ± 5.88 | 57.01 ± 5.52 |
| No Auxiliary | 72.55 ± 3.13 | 68.32 ± 3.06 | 51.94 ± 4.04 | 53.58 ± 5.36 | 57.10 ± 6.15 |
| No Alignment | 72.52 ± 3.02 | 68.09 ± 3.48 | 52.50 ± 4.20 | 54.78 ± 5.76 | 58.83 ± 6.35 |
| Setting | Model | Accuracy | ROC AUC | F1 | Precision | Recall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LOCTO | C | 61.69 ± 6.99 | 67.72 ± 3.87 | 42.41 ± 5.40 | 42.61 ± 13.69 | 51.50 ± 8.44 |
| BC | 70.05 ± 1.63 | 71.65 ± 3.02 | 49.16 ± 5.72 | 51.66 ± 2.38 | 50.37 ± 10.22 | |
| LOTO | C | 68.93 ± 2.95 | 74.49 ± 1.56 | 57.02 ± 2.16 | 55.44 ± 2.04 | 63.53 ± 4.86 |
| BC | 73.49 ± 1.36 | 76.85 ± 3.56 | 60.53 ± 2.66 | 61.01 ± 1.84 | 63.36 ± 4.28 |
| Method | Description | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| GeneBio | Combined score of immunotherapy target markers PD1/PDL1/CTLA4 | Kong et al. (2022) |
| CTLA4 | Expression of CTLA4 as a single ICI target marker | Kong et al. (2022) |
| PD1 | Expression of PDCD1 as a single ICI target marker | Kong et al. (2022) |
| PDL1 | Expression of CD274 as a single ICI target marker | Kong et al. (2022) |
| CD8 | CD8 + T cell score derived from average expression of CD8A and CD8B | Chen et al. (2016) Kong et al. (2022) |
| CIS | Cytotoxic immune signature score averaging cytotoxic immune genes | Davoli et al. (2017) |
| Method | AUC (%) | Accuracy (%) | F1 (%) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C | CT | T | C | CT | T | C | CT | T | |
| Logistic regression on baseline methods | |||||||||
| CKS | 61.88 | 63.96 | 63.05 | 57.70 | 59.99 | 59.30 | 48.23 | 47.95 | 48.78 |
| GEP | 62.83 | 65.50 | 65.42 | 57.27 | 57.05 | 60.02 | 48.30 | 46.60 | 47.77 |
| IFNG | 61.97 | 64.82 | 62.89 | 65.57 | 68.51 | 65.23 | 38.85 | 38.36 | 39.31 |
| CD8 | 61.13 | 64.39 | 61.99 | 57.27 | 59.74 | 62.65 | 44.61 | 42.89 | 48.80 |