Back to Search Start Over

Development of a Deep Learning Algorithm for the Histopathologic Diagnosis and Gleason Grading of Prostate Cancer Biopsies: A Pilot Study

Authors :
Drew Linsley
Andreas Karagounis
Thomas Serre
Ohad Kott
Boris Gershman
Dragan Golijanin
Carleen Jeffers
Ali Amin
Brown University
Department of Neuroscience and Institute for Brain Science, Brown University
Artificial and Natural Intelligence Toulouse Institute (ANITI)
Source :
European Urology Focus, European Urology Focus, Elsevier, 2021, 7 (2), pp.347-351. ⟨10.1016/j.euf.2019.11.003⟩, Eur Urol Focus
Publication Year :
2021
Publisher :
HAL CCSD, 2021.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The pathologic diagnosis and Gleason grading of prostate cancer are time-consuming, error-prone, and subject to interobserver variability. Machine learning offers opportunities to improve the diagnosis, risk stratification, and prognostication of prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: To develop a state-of-the-art deep learning algorithm for the histopathologic diagnosis and Gleason grading of prostate biopsy specimens. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 85 prostate core biopsy specimens from 25 patients were digitized at 20× magnification and annotated for Gleason 3, 4, and 5 prostate adenocarcinoma by a urologic pathologist. From these virtual slides, we sampled 14 803 image patches of 256 × 256 pixels, approximately balanced for malignancy. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We trained and tested a deep residual convolutional neural network to classify each patch at two levels: (1) coarse (benign vs malignant) and (2) fine (benign vs Gleason 3 vs 4 vs 5). Model performance was evaluated using fivefold cross-validation. Randomization tests were used for hypothesis testing of the model performance versus chance. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The model demonstrated 91.5% accuracy (p < 0.001) at coarse-level classification of image patches as benign versus malignant (0.93 sensitivity, 0.90 specificity, and 0.95 average precision). The model demonstrated 85.4% accuracy (p < 0.001) at fine-level classification of image patches as benign versus Gleason 3 versus Gleason 4 versus Gleason 5 (0.83 sensitivity, 0.94 specificity, and 0.83 average precision), with the greatest number of confusions in distinguishing between Gleason 3 and 4, and between Gleason 4 and 5. Limitations include the small sample size and the need for external validation. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, a deep learning-based computer vision algorithm demonstrated excellent performance for the histopathologic diagnosis and Gleason grading of prostate cancer. PATIENT SUMMARY: We developed a deep learning algorithm that demonstrated excellent performance for the diagnosis and grading of prostate cancer.

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
24054569
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
European Urology Focus, European Urology Focus, Elsevier, 2021, 7 (2), pp.347-351. ⟨10.1016/j.euf.2019.11.003⟩, Eur Urol Focus
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....0511a199e21af510fa6fced4e80c543c
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2019.11.003⟩