Multi-Instance Multi-Label Learning for Multi-Class Classification of Whole Slide Breast Histopathology Images

Digital pathology has entered a new era with the availability of whole slide scanners that create the high-resolution images of full biopsy slides. Consequently, the uncertainty regarding the correspondence between the image areas and the diagnostic labels assigned by pathologists at the slide level, and the need for identifying regions that belong to multiple classes with different clinical significances have emerged as two new challenges. However, generalizability of the state-of-the-art algorithms, whose accuracies were reported on carefully selected regions of interest (ROIs) for the binary benign versus cancer classification, to these multi-class learning and localization problems is currently unknown. This paper presents our potential solutions to these challenges by exploiting the viewing records of pathologists and their slide-level annotations in weakly supervised learning scenarios. First, we extract candidate ROIs from the logs of pathologists’ image screenings based on different behaviors, such as zooming, panning, and fixation. Then, we model each slide with a bag of instances represented by the candidate ROIs and a set of class labels extracted from the pathology forms. Finally, we use four different multi-instance multi-label learning algorithms for both slide-level and ROI-level predictions of diagnostic categories in whole slide breast histopathology images. Slide-level evaluation using 5-class and 14-class settings showed average precision values up to 81% and 69%, respectively, under different weakly labeled learning scenarios. ROI-level predictions showed that the classifier could successfully perform multi-class localization and classification within whole slide images that were selected to include the full range of challenging diagnostic categories.

[1]  Narasimhan P. Agaram,et al.  Atypical ductal hyperplasia: interobserver and intraobserver variability , 2011, Modern Pathology.

[2]  Linda G. Shapiro,et al.  Localization of Diagnostically Relevant Regions of Interest in Whole Slide Images: a Comparative Study , 2016, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[3]  Tad T. Brunyé,et al.  Eye Movements as an Index of Pathologist Visual Expertise: A Pilot Study , 2014, PloS one.

[4]  J. Elmore,et al.  Diagnostic concordance among pathologists interpreting breast biopsy specimens. , 2015, JAMA.

[5]  Zhuowen Tu,et al.  Multiple clustered instance learning for histopathology cancer image classification, segmentation and clustering , 2012, 2012 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.

[6]  A. Ruifrok,et al.  Quantification of histochemical staining by color deconvolution. , 2001, Analytical and quantitative cytology and histology.

[7]  Zhi-Hua Zhou,et al.  M3MIML: A Maximum Margin Method for Multi-instance Multi-label Learning , 2008, 2008 Eighth IEEE International Conference on Data Mining.

[8]  A. Madabhushi,et al.  Histopathological Image Analysis: A Review , 2009, IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering.

[9]  Anant Madabhushi,et al.  Multi-Field-of-View Framework for Distinguishing Tumor Grade in ER+ Breast Cancer From Entire Histopathology Slides , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[10]  Anant Madabhushi,et al.  A Boosted Bayesian Multiresolution Classifier for Prostate Cancer Detection From Digitized Needle Biopsies , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[11]  Eric I-Chao Chang,et al.  Multi‐label classification for colon cancer using histopathological images , 2013, Microscopy research and technique.

[12]  Thomas Hofmann,et al.  Support Vector Machines for Multiple-Instance Learning , 2002, NIPS.

[13]  Akira Saito,et al.  Automated gastric cancer diagnosis on H&E-stained sections; ltraining a classifier on a large scale with multiple instance machine learning , 2013, Medical Imaging.

[14]  Mrinal K. Mandal,et al.  An Efficient Technique for Nuclei Segmentation Based on Ellipse Descriptor Analysis and Improved Seed Detection Algorithm , 2014, IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics.

[15]  Donald L Weaver,et al.  Histological features associated with diagnostic agreement in atypical ductal hyperplasia of the breast: illustrative cases from the B‐Path study , 2016, Histopathology.

[16]  Metin Nafi Gürcan,et al.  Computerized classification of intraductal breast lesions using histopathological images , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[17]  Linda G. Shapiro,et al.  Multi-instance multi-label learning for whole slide breast histopathology , 2016, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[18]  Zhi-Hua Zhou,et al.  Multi-Label Learning by Instance Differentiation , 2007, AAAI.

[19]  Jiebo Luo,et al.  Learning multi-label scene classification , 2004, Pattern Recognit..

[20]  Gary Longton,et al.  Development of a diagnostic test set to assess agreement in breast pathology: practical application of the Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS) , 2013, BMC Women's Health.

[21]  Linda G. Shapiro,et al.  A Randomized Study Comparing Digital Imaging to Traditional Glass Slide Microscopy for Breast Biopsy and Cancer Diagnosis , 2017, Journal of pathology informatics.

[22]  Melih Kandemir,et al.  Computer-aided diagnosis from weak supervision: A benchmarking study , 2015, Comput. Medical Imaging Graph..

[23]  Peter J. Rousseeuw,et al.  Clustering by means of medoids , 1987 .

[24]  Nico Karssemeijer,et al.  Automated Detection of DCIS in Whole-Slide H&E Stained Breast Histopathology Images , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[25]  Linda G. Shapiro,et al.  Localization of Diagnostically Relevant Regions of Interest in Whole Slide Images: a Comparative Study , 2014, 2014 22nd International Conference on Pattern Recognition.

[26]  G. A. Edgar Measure, Topology, and Fractal Geometry , 1990 .

[27]  Zhi-Hua Zhou,et al.  Multi-instance multi-label learning , 2008, Artif. Intell..