Search

The presence of perineural invasion (PNI) by carcinoma in prostate biopsies has been shown to be associated with poor prognosis. The assessment and quantification of PNI are, however, labor intensive. To aid pathologists in this task, we developed an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm based on deep neural networks. We collected, digitized, and pixel-wise annotated the PNI findings in each of the approximately 80,000 biopsy cores from the 7406 men who underwent biopsy in a screening trial between 2012 and 2014. In total, 485 biopsy cores showed PNI. We also digitized more than 10% (n = 8318) of the PNI negative biopsy cores. Digitized biopsies from a random selection of 80% of the men were used to build the AI algorithm, while 20% were used to evaluate its performance. For detecting PNI in prostate biopsy cores, the AI had an estimated area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of 0.98 (95% CI 0.97-0.99) based on 106 PNI positive cores and 1652 PNI negative cores in the independent test set. For a pre-specified operating point, this translates to sensitivity of 0.87 and specificity of 0.97. The corresponding positive and negative predictive values were 0.67 and 0.99, respectively. The concordance of the AI with pathologists, measured by mean pairwise Cohen's kappa (0.74), was comparable to inter-pathologist concordance (0.68 to 0.75). The proposed algorithm detects PNI in prostate biopsies with acceptable performance. This could aid pathologists by reducing the number of biopsies that need to be assessed for PNI and by highlighting regions of diagnostic interest., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Numerous studies have shown a correlation between perineural invasion (PNI) in prostate biopsies and outcome. The reporting of PNI varies widely in the literature. While the interobserver variability of prostate cancer grading has been studied extensively, less is known regarding the reproducibility of PNI. A total of 212 biopsy cores from a population-based screening trial were included in this study (106 with and 106 without PNI according to the original pathology reports). The glass slides were scanned and circulated among four pathologists with a special interest in urological pathology for assessment of PNI. Discordant cases were stained by immunohistochemistry for S-100 protein. PNI was diagnosed by all four observers in 34.0% of cases, while 41.5% were considered to be negative for PNI. In 24.5% of cases, there was a disagreement between the observers. The kappa for interobserver variability was 0.67-0.75 (mean 0.73). The observations from one participant were compared with data from the original reports, and a kappa for intraobserver variability of 0.87 was achieved. Based on immunohistochemical findings among discordant cases, 88.6% had PNI while 11.4% did not. The most common diagnostic pitfall was the presence of bundles of stroma or smooth muscle. It was noted in a few cases that collagenous micronodules could be mistaken for a nerve. The distance between cancer and nerve was another cause of disagreement. Although the results suggest that the reproducibility of PNI may be greater than that of prostate cancer grading, there is still a need for improvement and standardization.