A deep learning based strategy for identifying and associating mitotic activity with gene expression derived risk categories in estrogen receptor positive breast cancers

The treatment and management of early stage estrogen receptor positive (ER+) breast cancer is hindered by the difficulty in identifying patients who require adjuvant chemotherapy in contrast to those that will respond to hormonal therapy. To distinguish between the more and less aggressive breast tumors, which is a fundamental criterion for the selection of an appropriate treatment plan, Oncotype DX (ODX) and other gene expression tests are typically employed. While informative, these gene expression tests are expensive, tissue destructive, and require specialized facilities. Bloom‐Richardson (BR) grade, the common scheme employed in breast cancer grading, has been shown to be correlated with the Oncotype DX risk score. Unfortunately, studies have also shown that the BR grade determined experiences notable inter‐observer variability. One of the constituent categories in BR grading is the mitotic index. The goal of this study was to develop a deep learning (DL) classifier to identify mitotic figures from whole slides images of ER+ breast cancer, the hypothesis being that the number of mitoses identified by the DL classifier would correlate with the corresponding Oncotype DX risk categories. The mitosis detector yielded an average F‐score of 0.556 in the AMIDA mitosis dataset using a 6‐fold validation setup. For a cohort of 174 whole slide images with early stage ER+ breast cancer for which the corresponding Oncotype DX score was available, the distributions of the number of mitoses identified by the DL classifier was found to be significantly different between the high vs low Oncotype DX risk groups (P < 0.01). Comparisons of other risk groups, using both ODX score and histological grade, were also found to present significantly different automated mitoses distributions. Additionally, a support vector machine classifier trained to separate low/high Oncotype DX risk categories using the mitotic count determined by the DL classifier yielded a 83.19% classification accuracy. © 2017 International Society for Advancement of Cytometry

[1]  Nikhil G Thaker,et al.  The 21-gene recurrence score complements IBTR! Estimates in early-stage, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-normal, lymph node-negative breast cancer , 2015, SpringerPlus.

[2]  G. Acs,et al.  Comparison of Oncotype DX and Mammostrat risk estimations and correlations with histologic tumor features in low-grade, estrogen receptor-positive invasive breast carcinomas , 2013, Modern Pathology.

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

[4]  Maria S. Kulikova,et al.  Mitosis detection in breast cancer histological images An ICPR 2012 contest , 2013, Journal of pathology informatics.

[5]  George Lee,et al.  Cell Orientation Entropy (COrE): Predicting Biochemical Recurrence from Prostate Cancer Tissue Microarrays , 2013, MICCAI.

[6]  Rohit Bhargava,et al.  Histopathologic variables predict Oncotype DX™ Recurrence Score , 2008, Modern Pathology.

[7]  Max A. Viergever,et al.  Breast Cancer Histopathology Image Analysis: A Review , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[8]  Luca Maria Gambardella,et al.  Mitosis Detection in Breast Cancer Histology Images with Deep Neural Networks , 2013, MICCAI.

[9]  Sergey Ioffe,et al.  Batch Normalization: Accelerating Deep Network Training by Reducing Internal Covariate Shift , 2015, ICML.

[10]  F. Tarentini Trojani [Tumors of the breast]. , 1987, La Clinica terapeutica.

[11]  Anant Madabhushi,et al.  A Quantitative Histomorphometric Classifier (QuHbIC) Identifies Aggressive Versus Indolent p16-Positive Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma , 2014, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[12]  Bahram Parvin,et al.  Morphometic analysis of TCGA glioblastoma multiforme , 2011, BMC Bioinformatics.

[13]  Rasmus Larsen,et al.  HEp-2 Cell Classification Using Shape Index Histograms With Donut-Shaped Spatial Pooling , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[14]  Luca Maria Gambardella,et al.  Assessment of algorithms for mitosis detection in breast cancer histopathology images , 2014, Medical Image Anal..

[15]  Anant Madabhushi,et al.  Computer-aided prognosis of ER+ breast cancer histopathology and correlating survival outcome with Oncotype DX assay , 2009, 2009 IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: From Nano to Macro.

[16]  J. Russo,et al.  Breast carcinoma malignancy grading by Bloom–Richardson system vs proliferation index: reproducibility of grade and advantages of proliferation index , 2005, Modern Pathology.

[17]  T. Rebbeck,et al.  Co-Occurring Gland Angularity in Localized Subgraphs: Predicting Biochemical Recurrence in Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients , 2014, PloS one.

[18]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks , 2012, Commun. ACM.

[19]  W D Dupont,et al.  Histologic grading of breast carcinoma. A reproducibility study , 1994, Cancer.

[20]  Angel Cruz-Roa,et al.  Mitosis detection in breast cancer pathology images by combining handcrafted and convolutional neural network features , 2014, Journal of medical imaging.

[21]  Dan Wang,et al.  Comprehensive Histologic Scoring to Maximize the Predictability of Pathology-generated Equation of Breast Cancer Oncotype DX Recurrence Score , 2016, Applied immunohistochemistry & molecular morphology : AIMM.

[22]  Andrew Janowczyk,et al.  Deep learning for digital pathology image analysis: A comprehensive tutorial with selected use cases , 2016, Journal of pathology informatics.

[23]  Bahram Parvin,et al.  Batch-invariant nuclear segmentation in whole mount histology sections , 2012, 2012 9th IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI).