An artificial intelligence algorithm for prostate cancer diagnosis in whole slide images of core needle biopsies: a blinded clinical validation and deployment study.
There is high demand to develop computer-assisted diagnostic tools to evaluate prostate core needle biopsies (CNBs), but little clinical validation and a lack of clinical deployment of such tools. We report here on a blinded clinical validation study and deployment of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based algorithm in a pathology laboratory for routine clinical use to aid prostate diagnosis.
An AI-based algorithm was developed using haematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained slides of prostate CNBs digitised with a Philips scanner, which were divided into training (1 357 480 image patches from 549 H&E-stained slides) and internal test (2501 H&E-stained slides) datasets. The algorithm provided slide-level scores for probability of cancer, Gleason score 7-10 (vs Gleason score 6 or atypical small acinar proliferation [ASAP]), Gleason pattern 5, and perineural invasion and calculation of cancer percentage present in CNB material. The algorithm was subsequently validated on an external dataset of 100 consecutive cases (1627 H&E-stained slides) digitised on an Aperio AT2 scanner. In addition, the AI tool was implemented in a pathology laboratory within routine clinical workflow as a second read system to review all prostate CNBs. Algorithm performance was assessed with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), specificity, and sensitivity, as well as Pearson's correlation coefficient (Pearson's r) for cancer percentage.
The algorithm achieved an AUC of 0·997 (95% CI 0·995 to 0·998) for cancer detection in the internal test set and 0·991 (0·979 to 1·00) in the external validation set. The AUC for distinguishing between a low-grade (Gleason score 6 or ASAP) and high-grade (Gleason score 7-10) cancer diagnosis was 0·941 (0·905 to 0·977) and the AUC for detecting Gleason pattern 5 was 0·971 (0·943 to 0·998) in the external validation set. Cancer percentage calculated by pathologists and the algorithm showed good agreement (r=0·882, 95% CI 0·834 to 0·915; p<0·0001) with a mean bias of -4·14% (-6·36 to -1·91). The algorithm achieved an AUC of 0·957 (0·930 to 0·985) for perineural invasion. In routine practice, the algorithm was used to assess 11 429 H&E-stained slides pertaining to 941 cases leading to 90 Gleason score 7-10 alerts and 560 cancer alerts. 51 (9%) cancer alerts led to additional cuts or stains being ordered, two (4%) of which led to a third opinion request. We report on the first case of missed cancer that was detected by the algorithm.
This study reports the successful development, external clinical validation, and deployment in clinical practice of an AI-based algorithm to accurately detect, grade, and evaluate clinically relevant findings in digitised slides of prostate CNBs.
Ibex Medical Analytics.
Pantanowitz L
，Quiroga-Garza GM
，Bien L
，Heled R
，Laifenfeld D
，Linhart C
，Sandbank J
，Albrecht Shach A
，Shalev V
，Vecsler M
，Michelow P
，Hazelhurst S
，Dhir R
... -
《The Lancet Digital Health》
Automated deep-learning system for Gleason grading of prostate cancer using biopsies: a diagnostic study.
The Gleason score is the strongest correlating predictor of recurrence for prostate cancer, but has substantial inter-observer variability, limiting its usefulness for individual patients. Specialised urological pathologists have greater concordance; however, such expertise is not widely available. Prostate cancer diagnostics could thus benefit from robust, reproducible Gleason grading. We aimed to investigate the potential of deep learning to perform automated Gleason grading of prostate biopsies.
In this retrospective study, we developed a deep-learning system to grade prostate biopsies following the Gleason grading standard. The system was developed using randomly selected biopsies, sampled by the biopsy Gleason score, from patients at the Radboud University Medical Center (pathology report dated between Jan 1, 2012, and Dec 31, 2017). A semi-automatic labelling technique was used to circumvent the need for manual annotations by pathologists, using pathologists' reports as the reference standard during training. The system was developed to delineate individual glands, assign Gleason growth patterns, and determine the biopsy-level grade. For validation of the method, a consensus reference standard was set by three expert urological pathologists on an independent test set of 550 biopsies. Of these 550, 100 were used in an observer experiment, in which the system, 13 pathologists, and two pathologists in training were compared with respect to the reference standard. The system was also compared to an external test dataset of 886 cores, which contained 245 cores from a different centre that were independently graded by two pathologists.
We collected 5759 biopsies from 1243 patients. The developed system achieved a high agreement with the reference standard (quadratic Cohen's kappa 0·918, 95% CI 0·891-0·941) and scored highly at clinical decision thresholds: benign versus malignant (area under the curve 0·990, 95% CI 0·982-0·996), grade group of 2 or more (0·978, 0·966-0·988), and grade group of 3 or more (0·974, 0·962-0·984). In an observer experiment, the deep-learning system scored higher (kappa 0·854) than the panel (median kappa 0·819), outperforming 10 of 15 pathologist observers. On the external test dataset, the system obtained a high agreement with the reference standard set independently by two pathologists (quadratic Cohen's kappa 0·723 and 0·707) and within inter-observer variability (kappa 0·71).
Our automated deep-learning system achieved a performance similar to pathologists for Gleason grading and could potentially contribute to prostate cancer diagnosis. The system could potentially assist pathologists by screening biopsies, providing second opinions on grade group, and presenting quantitative measurements of volume percentages.
Dutch Cancer Society.
Bulten W
，Pinckaers H
，van Boven H
，Vink R
，de Bel T
，van Ginneken B
，van der Laak J
，Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C
，Litjens G
... -
《-》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
