Ability to predict biochemical progression using Gleason score and a computer-generated quantitative nuclear grade derived from cancer cell nuclei.

OBJECTIVES To determine the ability to predict prostate cancer progression using shape, size, and chromatin texture nuclear grading features preselected by logistic regression analyses based on expert-selected prostate cancer cell nuclei captured using a computer-assisted image analysis system. METHODS One hundred fifteen patients with clinically localized prostate cancer were identified at the Johns Hopkins medical institutions. The mean follow-up period was 10.4 +/- 1.7 years in 70 patients without disease progression, whereas the mean time to progression for the entire group was 3.8 +/- 2.5 years. Using 5-microns Feulgen-stained tissue sections, approximately 150 cancer cell nuclei were selected and captured for each case using a CAS-200 Image Analysis System. Thirty-eight different nuclear morphometric descriptors (NMDs) were calculated for each cell nucleus. The variance of the NMDs for each tumor was examined by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses and by Cox survival analyses to assess their ability to predict prostate cancer progression. RESULTS Postoperative Gleason scoring was significantly correlated with disease progression (P < 0.00001; sensitivity, 73%; specificity, 84%; receiver operating characteristic curve area under the curve (ROC-AUC), 83%). Using backward stepwise logistic regression at a stringency of P < 0.05, the variances of 11 of the NMDs were found to be multivariately significant for progression prediction (P < 0.00001; sensitivity, 78%; specificity, 83%; ROC-AUC, 86%). A single value, termed the quantitative nuclear grade (QNG), was created from the variances of these, 11 multivariately significant NMDs using the logistic regression function. The QNG and the postoperative Gleason score were combined to create a model for the prediction of progression having a sensitivity of 89%, specificity of 84%, and ROC-AUC of 92%. These two parameters (QNG and Gleason score) clearly separated the patient sample into three statistically distinct risk groups and predicted the time to progression on the basis of Kaplan-Meier survival probability analysis. CONCLUSIONS The QNG, combined with the postoperative Gleason score, may assist in the more accurate stratification of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy into low-, moderate-, and high-risk groups for cancer recurrence and may permit the early initiation of adjuvant therapy.

[1]  B. Stenkvist,et al.  Morphometry of nuclei of the normal and malignant prostate in relation to DNA ploidy. , 1992, Analytical and quantitative cytology and histology.

[2]  P. Wingo,et al.  Cancer statistics, 1995 , 1995, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[3]  S. Fosså,et al.  Deoxyribonucleic acid ploidy of core biopsies and metastatic lymph nodes of prostate cancer patients: impact on time to progression. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Genitourinary Group. , 1993, The Journal of urology.

[4]  D. Gleason,et al.  Histologic grading of prostate cancer: a perspective. , 1992, Human pathology.

[5]  J. Oesterling,et al.  The clinical usefulness of prostate specific antigen: update 1994. , 1994, The Journal of urology.

[6]  A. D'Amico,et al.  A multivariate analysis of clinical and pathological factors that predict for prostate specific antigen failure after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. , 1995, The Journal of urology.

[7]  J. V. Bacus,et al.  Prostate Adenocarcinoma: An Image Analysis Technique for DNA Ploidy Determination , 1993 .

[8]  D. S. Coffey,et al.  Computerized image analysis of nuclear shape as a prognostic factor for prostatic cancer , 1982, The Prostate.

[9]  R. Vollmer,et al.  Multivariate statistical analysis for pathologist. Part I, The logistic model. , 1996, American journal of clinical pathology.

[10]  P. Scardino,et al.  DNA ploidy by image analysis of individual foci of prostate cancer: a preliminary report. , 1991, Cancer research.

[11]  A. Partin,et al.  Deoxyribonucleic acid ploidy analysis as a predictor of recurrence following radical prostatectomy for stage T2 disease. , 1995, The Journal of urology.

[12]  P H Bartels,et al.  Computer‐generated diagnosis and image analysis. An Overview , 1992, Cancer.

[13]  Jonathan A. Cooper,et al.  Role of epidermal growth factor‐stimulated protein kinase in control of proliferation of A431 cells , 1982, Journal of cellular biochemistry.

[14]  P. Humphrey,et al.  Is prostate specific antigen of clinical importance in evaluating outcome after radical prostatectomy. , 1993, The Journal of urology.

[15]  J. McNeal Cancer volume and site of origin of adenocarcinoma in the prostate: relationship to local and distant spread. , 1992, Human pathology.

[16]  T. Stamey,et al.  Capsular Penetration in Prostate Cancer. Significance for Natural History and Treatment , 1990, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[17]  A. Partin,et al.  The biology of prostate cancer: new and future directions in predicting tumor behavior. , 1992, Monographs in pathology.

[18]  Simon Haykin,et al.  Neural Networks: A Comprehensive Foundation , 1998 .

[19]  A W Partin,et al.  Nuclear roundness factor measurement for assessment of prognosis of patients with prostatic carcinoma. I. Testing of a digitization system. , 1988, The Journal of urology.

[20]  A W Partin,et al.  Nuclear roundness factor measurement for assessment of prognosis of patients with prostatic carcinoma. II. Standardization of methodology for histologic sections. , 1988, The Journal of urology.

[21]  A W Partin,et al.  A comparison of nuclear morphometry and Gleason grade as a predictor of prognosis in stage A2 prostate cancer: a critical analysis. , 1989, The Journal of urology.

[22]  J W Bacus,et al.  Optical microscope system for standardized cell measurements and analyses. , 1987, Applied optics.

[23]  Bacus Jw,et al.  Quality control in image cytometry: DNA ploidy. , 1994 .

[24]  D. Chan,et al.  The use of prostate specific antigen, clinical stage and Gleason score to predict pathological stage in men with localized prostate cancer. , 1993, The Journal of urology.

[25]  J C Eggleston,et al.  A new method to assess metastatic potential of human prostate cancer: relative nuclear roundness. , 1982, The Journal of urology.

[26]  N. J. Pressman Markovian analysis of cervical cell images. , 1976, The journal of histochemistry and cytochemistry : official journal of the Histochemistry Society.

[27]  B. Miles,et al.  Comparison of DNA content in primary and lymph node metastases in prostate adenocarcinoma. , 1993, Analytical and quantitative cytology and histology.

[28]  J. Dekernion,et al.  Prostatic specific antigen related to clinical status 1 to 14 years after radical retropubic prostatectomy. , 1991, British journal of urology.

[29]  P. Walsh,et al.  Influence of capsular penetration on progression following radical prostatectomy: a study of 196 cases with long-term followup. , 1993, The Journal of urology.

[30]  F. Marshall,et al.  Selection of men at high risk for disease recurrence for experimental adjuvant therapy following radical prostatectomy. , 1995, Urology.

[31]  A. Partin,et al.  Use of nuclear morphometry, gleason histologic scoring, clinical stage, and age to predict disease‐free survival among patients with prostate cancer , 1992, Cancer.

[32]  B. Mittal,et al.  The role of adjuvant irradiation following primary prostatectomy, based on histopathologic extent of tumor. , 1989, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[33]  Galina Pizov,et al.  Correlation of pathologic findings with progression after radical retropubic prostatectomy , 1993, Cancer.

[34]  D. Hosmer,et al.  Applied Logistic Regression , 1991 .

[35]  A E Dawson,et al.  Chromatin texture measurement by Markovian analysis. Use of nuclear models to define and select texture features. , 1993, Analytical and quantitative cytology and histology.