Weakly Supervised Gleason Grading of Prostate Cancer Slides using Graph Neural Network

Gleason grading of histopathology slides has been the “gold standard” for diagnosis, treatment and prognosis of prostate cancer. For the heterogenous Gleason score 7, patients with Gleason score 3+4 and 4+3 show a significant statistical difference in cancer recurrence and survival outcomes. Considering patients with Gleason score 7 reach up to 40% among all prostate cancers diagnosed, the question of choosing appropriate treatment and management strategy for these people is of utmost importance. In this paper, we present a Graph Neural Network (GNN) based weakly supervised framework for the classification of Gleason score 7. First, we construct the slides as graphs to capture both local relations among patches and global topological information of the whole slides. Then GNN based models are trained for the classification of heterogeneous Gleason score 7. According to the results, our approach obtains the best performance among existing works, with an accuracy of 79.5% on TCGA dataset. The experimental results thus demonstrate the significance of our proposed method in performing the Gleason grading task.

[1]  Jürgen Schmidhuber,et al.  Long Short-Term Memory , 1997, Neural Computation.

[2]  Xin Qi,et al.  Adversarial Domain Adaptation for Classification of Prostate Histopathology Whole-Slide Images , 2018, MICCAI.

[3]  Andrew Zisserman,et al.  Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognition , 2014, ICLR.

[4]  Ron Kikinis,et al.  Large scale digital prostate pathology image analysis combining feature extraction and deep neural network , 2017, ArXiv.

[5]  Claus Bahlmann,et al.  Computer-aided gleason grading of prostate cancer histopathological images using texton forests , 2010, 2010 IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: From Nano to Macro.

[6]  Joshua M. Stuart,et al.  The Cancer Genome Atlas Pan-Cancer analysis project , 2013, Nature Genetics.

[7]  Bahram Parvin,et al.  NUCLEAR SEGMENTATION IN H & E SECTIONS VIA MULTI-REFERENCE GRAPH CUT ( MRGC ) , 2011 .

[8]  Kilian Q. Weinberger,et al.  Densely Connected Convolutional Networks , 2016, 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR).

[9]  Mats Andersson,et al.  Convolutional neural networks for an automatic classification of prostate tissue slides with high-grade Gleason score , 2017, Medical Imaging.

[10]  Nassir Navab,et al.  Structure-Preserving Color Normalization and Sparse Stain Separation for Histological Images , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[11]  T. Berzin,et al.  Development and validation of a deep-learning algorithm for the detection of polyps during colonoscopy , 2018, Nature Biomedical Engineering.

[12]  B. Delahunt,et al.  The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System , 2015, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[13]  Samuel S. Schoenholz,et al.  Neural Message Passing for Quantum Chemistry , 2017, ICML.

[14]  J. Epstein,et al.  Prostate cancer grading: a decade after the 2005 modified system , 2018, Modern Pathology.

[15]  A. Jemal,et al.  Cancer statistics, 2017 , 2017, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[16]  T. Hermanns,et al.  Automated Gleason grading of prostate cancer tissue microarrays via deep learning , 2018, Scientific Reports.

[17]  N. Otsu.  A threshold selection method from gray level histograms , 1979 .

[18]  Jian Sun,et al.  Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition , 2015, 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR).

[19]  L. Egevad,et al.  A Contemporary Prostate Cancer Grading System: A Validated Alternative to the Gleason Score. , 2016, European urology.

[20]  Ellery Wulczyn,et al.  Development and validation of a deep learning algorithm for improving Gleason scoring of prostate cancer , 2018, npj Digital Medicine.

[21]  Claes Lundström,et al.  Towards grading gleason score using generically trained deep convolutional neural networks , 2016, 2016 IEEE 13th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI).

[22]  Arkadiusz Gertych,et al.  An attention-based multi-resolution model for prostate whole slide imageclassification and localization , 2019, ArXiv.

[23]  Erik Reinhard,et al.  Color Transfer between Images , 2001, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications.

[24]  Chaomin Shen,et al.  Gleason Score Prediction using Deep Learning in Tissue Microarray Image , 2020, ArXiv.

[25]  Bram van Ginneken,et al.  Automated Gleason Grading of Prostate Biopsies using Deep Learning , 2019, ArXiv.

[26]  Philip S. Yu,et al.  A Comprehensive Survey on Graph Neural Networks , 2019, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems.

[27]  Jeroen van der Laak,et al.  Detection of Prostate Cancer in Whole-Slide Images Through End-to-End Training With Image-Level Labels , 2020, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[28]  Ming Y. Lu,et al.  Weakly Supervised Prostate Tma Classification Via Graph Convolutional Networks , 2019, 2020 IEEE 17th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI).

[29]  Tae Hyun Hwang,et al.  Automatic Classification of Prostate Cancer Gleason Scores from Digitized Whole Slide Tissue Biopsies , 2018 .

[30]  K. Trpkov,et al.  The impact of the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus on Gleason grading in contemporary practice , 2009, Histopathology.

[31]  Dumitru Erhan,et al.  Going deeper with convolutions , 2014, 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR).

[32]  Michael L. Gatza,et al.  Differentiation among prostate cancer patients with Gleason score of 7 using histopathology whole-slide image and genomic data , 2018, Medical Imaging.

[33]  P. Humphrey,et al.  The 2016 WHO Classification of Tumours of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs-Part A: Renal, Penile, and Testicular Tumours. , 2016, European urology.