Automated detection of cribriform growth patterns in prostate histology images

Cribriform growth patterns in prostate carcinoma are associated with poor prognosis. We aimed to introduce a deep learning method to detect such patterns automatically. To do so, convolutional neural network was trained to detect cribriform growth patterns on 128 prostate needle biopsies. Ensemble learning taking into account other tumor growth patterns during training was used to cope with heterogeneous and limited tumor tissue occurrences. ROC and FROC analyses were applied to assess network performance regarding detection of biopsies harboring cribriform growth pattern. The ROC analysis yielded a mean area under the curve up to 0.81. FROC analysis demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.9 for regions larger than \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${0.0150}\,\hbox {mm}^{2}$$\end{document}0.0150mm2 with on average 7.5 false positives. To benchmark method performance for intra-observer annotation variability, false positive and negative detections were re-evaluated by the pathologists. Pathologists considered 9% of the false positive regions as cribriform, and 11% as possibly cribriform; 44% of the false negative regions were not annotated as cribriform. As a final experiment, the network was also applied on a dataset of 60 biopsy regions annotated by 23 pathologists. With the cut-off reaching highest sensitivity, all images annotated as cribriform by at least 7/23 of the pathologists, were all detected as cribriform by the network and 9/60 of the images were detected as cribriform whereas no pathologist labelled them as such. In conclusion, the proposed deep learning method has high sensitivity for detecting cribriform growth patterns at the expense of a limited number of false positives. It can detect cribriform regions that are labelled as such by at least a minority of pathologists. Therefore, it could assist clinical decision making by suggesting suspicious regions.

[1]  Hilla Peretz,et al.  Ju n 20 03 Schrödinger ’ s Cat : The rules of engagement , 2003 .

[2]  L. Egevad,et al.  The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma , 2005, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[3]  A. Zlotta,et al.  The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Glea- son Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma , 2006 .

[4]  A. Bjartell,et al.  Words of wisdom. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. , 2006, European urology.

[5]  Yoshua Bengio,et al.  Understanding the difficulty of training deep feedforward neural networks , 2010, AISTATS.

[6]  Anne-Marie Welling,et al.  Work in progress. , 2012, Nursing standard (Royal College of Nursing (Great Britain) : 1987).

[7]  Thomas Brox,et al.  Striving for Simplicity: The All Convolutional Net , 2014, ICLR.

[8]  Arkadiusz Gertych,et al.  Machine learning approaches to analyze histological images of tissues from radical prostatectomies , 2015, Comput. Medical Imaging Graph..

[9]  Ewout W Steyerberg,et al.  Cribriform growth is highly predictive for postoperative metastasis and disease-specific death in Gleason score 7 prostate cancer , 2015, Modern Pathology.

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

[11]  B. van Ginneken,et al.  Deep learning as a tool for increased accuracy and efficiency of histopathological diagnosis , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[12]  Esther I Verhoef,et al.  Disease-specific survival of patients with invasive cribriform and intraductal prostate cancer at diagnostic biopsy , 2016, Modern Pathology.

[13]  Daan Nieboer,et al.  Gleason grade 4 prostate adenocarcinoma patterns: an interobserver agreement study among genitourinary pathologists , 2016, Histopathology.

[14]  Kunwei Shen,et al.  Non-anthracycline-containing docetaxel and cyclophosphamide regimen is associated with sustained worse outcome compared with docetaxel, anthracycline and cyclophosphamide in neoadjuvant treatment of triple negative and HER2-positive breast cancer patients: updated follow-up data from NATT study , 2016, Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu.

[15]  Ni Chen,et al.  The evolving Gleason grading system. , 2016, Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu.

[16]  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.

[17]  Bram van Ginneken,et al.  A survey on deep learning in medical image analysis , 2017, Medical Image Anal..

[18]  Thomas J. Fuchs,et al.  Terabyte-scale Deep Multiple Instance Learning for Classification and Localization in Pathology , 2018, ArXiv.

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

[20]  Esther I Verhoef,et al.  Large cribriform growth pattern identifies ISUP grade 2 prostate cancer at high risk for recurrence and metastasis , 2018, Modern Pathology.

[21]  Arkadiusz Gertych,et al.  Semantic segmentation for prostate cancer grading by convolutional neural networks , 2018, Medical Imaging.

[22]  Gang Wang,et al.  Automatic grading of prostate cancer in digitized histopathology images: Learning from multiple experts , 2018, Medical Image Anal..

[23]  Klaus H. Maier-Hein,et al.  A Probabilistic U-Net for Segmentation of Ambiguous Images , 2018, NeurIPS.

[24]  Gang Sun,et al.  Squeeze-and-Excitation Networks , 2017, 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.

[25]  T. H. van der Kwast,et al.  Grading of prostate cancer: a work in progress , 2018, Histopathology.

[26]  Tomasz Markiewicz,et al.  Convolutional neural networks can accurately distinguish four histologic growth patterns of lung adenocarcinoma in digital slides , 2019, Scientific Reports.

[27]  Onno J de Boer,et al.  Deep learning for automatic Gleason pattern classification for grade group determination of prostate biopsies , 2019, Virchows Archiv.

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

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

[30]  Thomas J. Fuchs,et al.  Clinical-grade computational pathology using weakly supervised deep learning on whole slide images , 2019, Nature Medicine.

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

[32]  Esther I Verhoef,et al.  Prostate cancer growth patterns beyond the Gleason score: entering a new era of comprehensive tumour grading , 2020, Histopathology.

[33]  B. van Ginneken,et al.  Automated deep-learning system for Gleason grading of prostate cancer using biopsies: a diagnostic study. , 2020, The Lancet. Oncology.

[34]  Kimmo Kartasalo,et al.  Artificial intelligence for diagnosis and grading of prostate cancer in biopsies: a population-based, diagnostic study. , 2020, The Lancet. Oncology.

[35]  Enhua Wu,et al.  Squeeze-and-Excitation Networks , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.