Immune-checkpoint blockade (ICB) has demonstrated efficacy in many tumor types, but predictors of responsiveness to anti-PD1 ICB are incompletely characterized. In this study, we analyzed a clinically annotated cohort of patients with melanoma (n = 144) treated with anti-PD1 ICB, with whole-exome and whole-transcriptome sequencing of pre-treatment tumors. We found that tumor mutational burden as a predictor of response was confounded by melanoma subtype, whereas multiple novel genomic and transcriptomic features predicted selective response, including features associated with MHC-I and MHC-II antigen presentation. Furthermore, previous anti-CTLA4 ICB exposure was associated with different predictors of response compared to tumors that were naive to ICB, suggesting selective immune effects of previous exposure to anti-CTLA4 ICB. Finally, we developed parsimonious models integrating clinical, genomic and transcriptomic features to predict intrinsic resistance to anti-PD1 ICB in individual tumors, with validation in smaller independent cohorts limited by the availability of comprehensive data. Broadly, we present a framework to discover predictive features and build models of ICB therapeutic response.

Recent studies have successfully demonstrated the use of deep-learning algorithms for dermatologist-level classification of suspicious lesions by the use of excessive proprietary image databases and limited numbers of dermatologists. For the first time, the performance of a deep-learning algorithm trained by open-source images exclusively is compared to a large number of dermatologists covering all levels within the clinical hierarchy. We used methods from enhanced deep learning to train a convolutional neural network (CNN) with 12,378 open-source dermoscopic images. We used 100 images to compare the performance of the CNN to that of the 157 dermatologists from 12 university hospitals in Germany. Outperformance of dermatologists by the deep neural network was measured in terms of sensitivity, specificity and receiver operating characteristics. The mean sensitivity and specificity achieved by the dermatologists with dermoscopic images was 74.1% (range 40.0%-100%) and 60% (range 21.3%-91.3%), respectively. At a mean sensitivity of 74.1%, the CNN exhibited a mean specificity of 86.5% (range 70.8%-91.3%). At a mean specificity of 60%, a mean sensitivity of 87.5% (range 80%-95%) was achieved by our algorithm. Among the dermatologists, the chief physicians showed the highest mean specificity of 69.2% at a mean sensitivity of 73.3%. With the same high specificity of 69.2%, the CNN had a mean sensitivity of 84.5%. A CNN trained by open-source images exclusively outperformed 136 of the 157 dermatologists and all the different levels of experience (from junior to chief physicians) in terms of average specificity and sensitivity.

Melanoma is the most dangerous type of skin cancer but is curable if detected early. Recent publications demonstrated that artificial intelligence is capable in classifying images of benign nevi and melanoma with dermatologist-level precision. However, a statistically significant improvement compared with dermatologist classification has not been reported to date. For this comparative study, 4204 biopsy-proven images of melanoma and nevi (1:1) were used for the training of a convolutional neural network (CNN). New techniques of deep learning were integrated. For the experiment, an additional 804 biopsy-proven dermoscopic images of melanoma and nevi (1:1) were randomly presented to dermatologists of nine German university hospitals, who evaluated the quality of each image and stated their recommended treatment (19,296 recommendations in total). Three McNemar's tests comparing the results of the CNN's test runs in terms of sensitivity, specificity and overall correctness were predefined as the main outcomes. The respective sensitivity and specificity of lesion classification by the dermatologists were 67.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 62.6%-71.7%) and 62.2% (95% CI: 57.6%-66.9%). In comparison, the trained CNN achieved a higher sensitivity of 82.3% (95% CI: 78.3%-85.7%) and a higher specificity of 77.9% (95% CI: 73.8%-81.8%). The three McNemar's tests in 2 × 2 tables all reached a significance level of p < 0.001. This significance level was sustained for both subgroups. For the first time, automated dermoscopic melanoma image classification was shown to be significantly superior to both junior and board-certified dermatologists (p < 0.001).

In recent studies, convolutional neural networks (CNNs) outperformed dermatologists in distinguishing dermoscopic images of melanoma and nevi. In these studies, dermatologists and artificial intelligence were considered as opponents. However, the combination of classifiers frequently yields superior results, both in machine learning and among humans. In this study, we investigated the potential benefit of combining human and artificial intelligence for skin cancer classification. Using 11,444 dermoscopic images, which were divided into five diagnostic categories, novel deep learning techniques were used to train a single CNN. Then, both 112 dermatologists of 13 German university hospitals and the trained CNN independently classified a set of 300 biopsy-verified skin lesions into those five classes. Taking into account the certainty of the decisions, the two independently determined diagnoses were combined to a new classifier with the help of a gradient boosting method. The primary end-point of the study was the correct classification of the images into five designated categories, whereas the secondary end-point was the correct classification of lesions as either benign or malignant (binary classification). Regarding the multiclass task, the combination of man and machine achieved an accuracy of 82.95%. This was 1.36% higher than the best of the two individual classifiers (81.59% achieved by the CNN). Owing to the class imbalance in the binary problem, sensitivity, but not accuracy, was examined and demonstrated to be superior (89%) to the best individual classifier (CNN with 86.1%). The specificity in the combined classifier decreased from 89.2% to 84%. However, at an equal sensitivity of 89%, the CNN achieved a specificity of only 81.5% INTERPRETATION: Our findings indicate that the combination of human and artificial intelligence achieves superior results over the independent results of both of these systems.

Recent studies have demonstrated the use of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to classify images of melanoma with accuracies comparable to those achieved by board-certified dermatologists. However, the performance of a CNN exclusively trained with dermoscopic images in a clinical image classification task in direct competition with a large number of dermatologists has not been measured to date. This study compares the performance of a convolutional neuronal network trained with dermoscopic images exclusively for identifying melanoma in clinical photographs with the manual grading of the same images by dermatologists. We compared automatic digital melanoma classification with the performance of 145 dermatologists of 12 German university hospitals. We used methods from enhanced deep learning to train a CNN with 12,378 open-source dermoscopic images. We used 100 clinical images to compare the performance of the CNN to that of the dermatologists. Dermatologists were compared with the deep neural network in terms of sensitivity, specificity and receiver operating characteristics. The mean sensitivity and specificity achieved by the dermatologists with clinical images was 89.4% (range: 55.0%-100%) and 64.4% (range: 22.5%-92.5%). At the same sensitivity, the CNN exhibited a mean specificity of 68.2% (range 47.5%-86.25%). Among the dermatologists, the attendings showed the highest mean sensitivity of 92.8% at a mean specificity of 57.7%. With the same high sensitivity of 92.8%, the CNN had a mean specificity of 61.1%. For the first time, dermatologist-level image classification was achieved on a clinical image classification task without training on clinical images. The CNN had a smaller variance of results indicating a higher robustness of computer vision compared with human assessment for dermatologic image classification tasks.