Abstract
Abstract
Background
Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide. While routine diagnosis of cancer is performed mainly with biopsy sampling, it is suboptimal to accurately characterize tumor heterogeneity. Positron emission tomography (PET)-driven radiomic research has demonstrated promising results when predicting clinical endpoints. This study aimed to investigate the added value of quantum machine learning both in simulator and in real quantum computers utilizing error mitigation techniques to predict clinical endpoints in various PET cancer patients.
Methods
Previously published PET radiomics datasets including 11C-MET PET glioma, 68GA-PSMA-11 PET prostate and lung 18F-FDG PET with 3-year survival, low-vs-high Gleason risk and 2-year survival as clinical endpoints respectively were utilized in this study. Redundancy reduction with 0.7, 0.8, and 0.9 Spearman rank thresholds (SRT), followed by selecting 8 and 16 features from all cohorts, was performed, resulting in 18 dataset variants. Quantum advantage was estimated by Geometric Difference (GDQ) score in each dataset variant. Five classic machine learning (CML) and their quantum versions (QML) were trained and tested in simulator environments across the dataset variants. Quantum circuit optimization and error mitigation were performed, followed by training and testing selected QML methods on the 21-qubit IonQ Aria quantum computer. Predictive performances were estimated by test balanced accuracy (BACC) values.
Results
On average, QML outperformed CML in simulator environments with 16-features (BACC 70% and 69%, respectively), while with 8-features, CML outperformed QML with + 1%. The highest average QML advantage was + 4%. The GDQ scores were ≤ 1.0 in all the 8-feature cases, while they were > 1.0 when QML outperformed CML in 9 out of 11 cases. The test BACC of selected QML methods and datasets in the IonQ device without error mitigation (EM) were 69.94% BACC, while EM increased test BACC to 75.66% (76.77% in noiseless simulators).
Conclusions
We demonstrated that with error mitigation, quantum advantage can be achieved in real existing quantum computers when predicting clinical endpoints in clinically relevant PET cancer cohorts. Quantum advantage can already be achieved in simulator environments in these cohorts when relying on QML.
Funder
Medical University of Vienna
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging,General Medicine,Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging,General Medicine
Reference51 articles.
1. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol [Internet]. 2017;71(4):618–29. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0302283816304705. Accessed 7 Feb 2023.
2. Papp L, Spielvogel CP, Grubmüller B, Grahovac M, Krajnc D, Ecsedi B et al. Supervised machine learning enables non-invasive lesion characterization in primary prostate cancer with [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging [Internet]. 2020; Available from:http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00259-020-05140-y. Accessed 7 Feb 2023.
3. Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet [Internet]. 2017;389(10071):815–22. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140673616324011. Accessed 7 Feb 2023.
4. Hartenbach M, Hartenbach S, Bechtloff W, Danz B, Kraft K, Klemenz B et al. Combined PET/MRI improves diagnostic accuracy in patients with prostate cancer: a prospective diagnostic trial. Clin Cancer Res [Internet]. 2014;20(12):3244–53 Available from: http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/doi/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-2653. Accessed 7 Feb 2023.
5. Liu C, Liu T, Zhang N, Liu Y, Li N, Du P, et al. 68Ga-PSMA-617 PET/CT: a promising new technique for predicting risk stratification and metastatic risk of prostate cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging [Internet]. 2018 Oct 2;45(11):1852–61. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00259-018-4037-9. Accessed 7 Feb 2023.