Inferring molecular signatures in colorectal cancer directly from routine whole-slide images.

3522 Background: Molecular profiling has advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) research but remains limited in the clinic due to cost and tissue constraints. In contrast, haematoxylin and eosin (H&E) whole-slide images (WSIs) are routinely available. Recent deep learning studies show that molecular signatures can be inferred from morphology. However, prediction of patient level pathway activity remains underexplored despite their pathobiological significance as coordinated drivers of cancer risk. Methods: We developed SPARROW, a neural network trained to predict over 200 molecular signatures from WSI graph representation of tumour, stroma, lymphocytic and mucosal regions in resection specimens. SPARROW was trained on TCGA (n = 585) and externally validated in the PETACC3 trial dataset (n = 1,160). It predicts pathway enrichment scores, point mutation and clinically actionable CRC subtypes. Results: As shown in the table below, SPARROW accurately predicts key molecular features of CRC directly from routine H&E slides and generalizes robustly to the independent PETACC3 trial. The strongest concordance was observed for biologically and clinically relevant programmes, including intrinsic consensus molecular subtype 3 (iCMS3) genes, Fetal enteric progenitor pathway genes, a 22-gene YAP/TAZ transcriptional target signature and epithelial-specific high-risk gene set (epiHR) activity. SPARROW also showed good performance for clinically used classifications, including iCMS/CMS subtypes, interferon phenotype and BRAF mutation status. Importantly, image-derived molecular scores were predictive of relapse free survival as well. Conclusions: SPARROW demonstrates that key molecular features of CRC, including transcriptomic subtypes and genomic alterations, are robustly encoded in and learnable from routine H&E histology. This enables histology to serve as a cost-effective and rapid surrogate for predicting key molecular signatures and actionable molecular subtypes while also allowing mining of spatially localised image signatures associated with transcriptional programmes. Molecular Signature TCGA (4-fold CV) PETACC3 (external) Relapse Free Survival Analysis (PETACC3) iCMS3 (ρ) 0.64 ± 0.05 0.66 HR=1.2*, 95% CI:1.04-1.38 Fetal Mustata (ρ) 0.47 ± 0.06 0.61 HR=1.74*, 95% CI:1.45-2.08 YAP_22 (ρ) 0.41 ± 0.07 0.49 HR=2.54*, 95% CI:2.03-3.18 EpiHR (ρ) 0.40 ± 0.08 0.45 HR=1.59*, 95% CI:1.31-1.92 iCMS2 vs iCMS3 (AUC) 0.90 ± 0.02 0.92 HR=1.12, 95% CI:1.00-1.26 CMS (4 groups) (AUC) 0.84 ± 0.01 0.84 HR=6.3* (CMS4 vs other), 95% CI:3.92-10.01 Interferon (High/Low) (AUC) 0.82 ± 0.08 0.88 HR=1.14, 95% CI:0.86-1.05 BRAF Mutation (AUC) 0.82 ± 0.07 0.80 HR=2.12*, 95% CI:1.13-4.29 *p-value <0.05 based on log-rank test using median pathway score.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2026-05-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2026.44.16_suppl.3522
Primary Topic
Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Inferring molecular signatures in colorectal cancer directly from routine whole-slide images.

Elena Richiardone, Piotr Keller, Sara Verbandt, 王金树 et al.
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
article

Inferring molecular signatures in colorectal cancer directly from routine whole-slide images.

Elena Richiardone, Piotr Keller, Sara Verbandt, 王金树, Gertjan Rasschaert, Hubert Piessevaux, Zedong Hu, Petros Tsantoulis, Sabine Tejpar, Mark Eastwood, Aimee Selten, Fayyaz Minhas
article en

Abstract

3522 Background: Molecular profiling has advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) research but remains limited in the clinic due to cost and tissue constraints. In contrast, haematoxylin and eosin (H&E) whole-slide images (WSIs) are routinely available. Recent deep learning studies show that molecular signatures can be inferred from morphology. However, prediction of patient level pathway activity remains underexplored despite their pathobiological significance as coordinated drivers of cancer risk. Methods: We developed SPARROW, a neural network trained to predict over 200 molecular signatures from WSI graph representation of tumour, stroma, lymphocytic and mucosal regions in resection specimens. SPARROW was trained on TCGA (n = 585) and externally validated in the PETACC3 trial dataset (n = 1,160). It predicts pathway enrichment scores, point mutation and clinically actionable CRC subtypes. Results: As shown in the table below, SPARROW accurately predicts key molecular features of CRC directly from routine H&E slides and generalizes robustly to the independent PETACC3 trial. The strongest concordance was observed for biologically and clinically relevant programmes, including intrinsic consensus molecular subtype 3 (iCMS3) genes, Fetal enteric progenitor pathway genes, a 22-gene YAP/TAZ transcriptional target signature and epithelial-specific high-risk gene set (epiHR) activity. SPARROW also showed good performance for clinically used classifications, including iCMS/CMS subtypes, interferon phenotype and BRAF mutation status. Importantly, image-derived molecular scores were predictive of relapse free survival as well. Conclusions: SPARROW demonstrates that key molecular features of CRC, including transcriptomic subtypes and genomic alterations, are robustly encoded in and learnable from routine H&E histology. This enables histology to serve as a cost-effective and rapid surrogate for predicting key molecular signatures and actionable molecular subtypes while also allowing mining of spatially localised image signatures associated with transcriptional programmes. Molecular Signature TCGA (4-fold CV) PETACC3 (external) Relapse Free Survival Analysis (PETACC3) iCMS3 (ρ) 0.64 ± 0.05 0.66 HR=1.2*, 95% CI:1.04-1.38 Fetal Mustata (ρ) 0.47 ± 0.06 0.61 HR=1.74*, 95% CI:1.45-2.08 YAP_22 (ρ) 0.41 ± 0.07 0.49 HR=2.54*, 95% CI:2.03-3.18 EpiHR (ρ) 0.40 ± 0.08 0.45 HR=1.59*, 95% CI:1.31-1.92 iCMS2 vs iCMS3 (AUC) 0.90 ± 0.02 0.92 HR=1.12, 95% CI:1.00-1.26 CMS (4 groups) (AUC) 0.84 ± 0.01 0.84 HR=6.3* (CMS4 vs other), 95% CI:3.92-10.01 Interferon (High/Low) (AUC) 0.82 ± 0.08 0.88 HR=1.14, 95% CI:0.86-1.05 BRAF Mutation (AUC) 0.82 ± 0.07 0.80 HR=2.12*, 95% CI:1.13-4.29 *p-value <0.05 based on log-rank test using median pathway score.

Journal of Clinical OncologyVol. 44(16_suppl)
Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc (BE), University of Warwick (GB), University Hospital of Geneva (CH), KU Leuven (BE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Inferring molecular signatures in colorectal cancer directly from routine whole-slide images. — Elena Richiardone, Piotr Keller, et al. · Journal of Clinical Oncology (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS