Deep learning models for histologic grading of breast cancer and association with disease prognosis.

Histologic grading of breast cancer involves review and scoring of three well-established morphologic features: mitotic count, nuclear pleomorphism, and tubule formation. Taken together, these features form the basis of the Nottingham Grading System which is used to inform breast cancer characterization and prognosis. In this study, we develop deep learning models to perform histologic scoring of all three components using digitized hematoxylin and eosin-stained slides containing invasive breast carcinoma. We first evaluate model performance using pathologist-based reference standards for each component. To complement this typical approach to evaluation, we further evaluate the deep learning models via prognostic analyses. The individual component models perform at or above published benchmarks for algorithm-based grading approaches, achieving high concordance rates with pathologist grading. Further, prognostic performance using deep learning-based grading is on par with that of pathologists performing review of matched slides. By providing scores for each component feature, the deep-learning based approach also provides the potential to identify the grading components contributing most to prognostic value. This may enable optimized prognostic models, opportunities to improve access to consistent grading, and approaches to better understand the links between histologic features and clinical outcomes in breast cancer.

Artificial intelligence for diagnosis and Gleason grading of prostate cancer: the PANDA challenge.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has shown promise for diagnosing prostate cancer in biopsies. However, results have been limited to individual studies, lacking validation in multinational settings. Competitions have been shown to be accelerators for medical imaging innovations, but their impact is hindered by lack of reproducibility and independent validation. With this in mind, we organized the PANDA challenge-the largest histopathology competition to date, joined by 1,290 developers-to catalyze development of reproducible AI algorithms for Gleason grading using 10,616 digitized prostate biopsies. We validated that a diverse set of submitted algorithms reached pathologist-level performance on independent cross-continental cohorts, fully blinded to the algorithm developers. On United States and European external validation sets, the algorithms achieved agreements of 0.862 (quadratically weighted κ, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.840-0.884) and 0.868 (95% CI, 0.835-0.900) with expert uropathologists. Successful generalization across different patient populations, laboratories and reference standards, achieved by a variety of algorithmic approaches, warrants evaluating AI-based Gleason grading in prospective clinical trials.

Predicting prostate cancer specific-mortality with artificial intelligence-based Gleason grading.

Background: Gleason grading of prostate cancer is an important prognostic factor, but suffers from poor reproducibility, particularly among non-subspecialist pathologists. Although artificial intelligence (A.I.) tools have demonstrated Gleason grading on-par with expert pathologists, it remains an open question whether and to what extent A.I. grading translates to better prognostication. Methods: In this study, we developed a system to predict prostate cancer-specific mortality via A.I.-based Gleason grading and subsequently evaluated its ability to risk-stratify patients on an independent retrospective cohort of 2807 prostatectomy cases from a single European center with 5-25 years of follow-up (median: 13, interquartile range 9-17). Results: Here, we show that the A.I.'s risk scores produced a C-index of 0.84 (95% CI 0.80-0.87) for prostate cancer-specific mortality. Upon discretizing these risk scores into risk groups analogous to pathologist Grade Groups (GG), the A.I. has a C-index of 0.82 (95% CI 0.78-0.85). On the subset of cases with a GG provided in the original pathology report (n = 1517), the A.I.'s C-indices are 0.87 and 0.85 for continuous and discrete grading, respectively, compared to 0.79 (95% CI 0.71-0.86) for GG obtained from the reports. These represent improvements of 0.08 (95% CI 0.01-0.15) and 0.07 (95% CI 0.00-0.14), respectively. Conclusions: Our results suggest that A.I.-based Gleason grading can lead to effective risk stratification, and warrants further evaluation for improving disease management.