Stress testing deep learning models for prostate cancer detection on biopsies and surgical specimens

The presence, location, and extent of prostate cancer is assessed by pathologists using H&E-stained tissue slides. Machine learning approaches can accomplish these tasks for both biopsies and radical prostatectomies. Deep learning approaches using convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have been shown to identify cancer in pathologic slides, some securing regulatory approval for clinical use. However, differences in sample processing can subtly alter the morphology between sample types, making it unclear whether deep learning algorithms will consistently work on both types of slide images. Our goal was to investigate whether morphological differences between sample types affected the performance of biopsy-trained cancer detection CNN models when applied to radical prostatectomies and vice versa using multiple cohorts (N = 1,000). Radical prostatectomies (N = 100) and biopsies (N = 50) were acquired from The University of Pennsylvania to train (80%) and validate (20%) a DenseNet CNN for biopsies (M<sup>B</sup>), radical prostatectomies (M<sup>R</sup>), and a combined dataset (M<sup>B+R</sup>). On a tile level, M<sup>B</sup> and M<sup>R</sup> achieved F1 scores greater than 0.88 when applied to their own sample type but less than 0.65 when applied across sample types. On a whole-slide level, models achieved significantly better performance on their own sample type compared to the alternative model (p < 0.05) for all metrics. This was confirmed by external validation using digitized biopsy slide images from a clinical trial [NRG Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG)] (NRG/RTOG 0521, N = 750) via both qualitative and quantitative analyses (p < 0.05). A comprehensive review of model outputs revealed morphologically driven decision making that adversely affected model performance. M<sup>B</sup> appeared to be challenged with the analysis of open gland structures, whereas M<sup>R</sup> appeared to be challenged with closed gland structures, indicating potential morphological variation between the training sets. These findings suggest that differences in morphology and heterogeneity necessitate the need for more tailored, sample-specific (i.e. biopsy and surgical) machine learning models. © 2024 The Author(s). The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The Journal of Pathology
Published
2024-12-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/path.6373
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.84

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Stress testing deep learning models for prostate cancer detection on biopsies and surgical specimens

Amit B. Shah, Juan C. Santa-Rosario, Felix Yi-Chung Feng, Tilak Pathak et al.
2 citations
The Journal of Pathology
Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
0.84
article

Stress testing deep learning models for prostate cancer detection on biopsies and surgical specimens

Amit B. Shah, Juan C. Santa-Rosario, Felix Yi-Chung Feng, Tilak Pathak, Michael Straza, Anant Madabhushi, Michael D. Feldman, Xavier Farré, Rohann Correa, Tuomas Mirtti, Howard M. Sandler, Jason A. Efstathiou, M.A. Hallman, Richard C. Jordan, Brennan Flannery, Susan Chafe, Priti Lal, Karen Elizabeth Hoffman, Stephanie L. Pugh
article en
2 citations

Abstract

The presence, location, and extent of prostate cancer is assessed by pathologists using H&E-stained tissue slides. Machine learning approaches can accomplish these tasks for both biopsies and radical prostatectomies. Deep learning approaches using convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have been shown to identify cancer in pathologic slides, some securing regulatory approval for clinical use. However, differences in sample processing can subtly alter the morphology between sample types, making it unclear whether deep learning algorithms will consistently work on both types of slide images. Our goal was to investigate whether morphological differences between sample types affected the performance of biopsy-trained cancer detection CNN models when applied to radical prostatectomies and vice versa using multiple cohorts (N = 1,000). Radical prostatectomies (N = 100) and biopsies (N = 50) were acquired from The University of Pennsylvania to train (80%) and validate (20%) a DenseNet CNN for biopsies (M<sup>B</sup>), radical prostatectomies (M<sup>R</sup>), and a combined dataset (M<sup>B+R</sup>). On a tile level, M<sup>B</sup> and M<sup>R</sup> achieved F1 scores greater than 0.88 when applied to their own sample type but less than 0.65 when applied across sample types. On a whole-slide level, models achieved significantly better performance on their own sample type compared to the alternative model (p < 0.05) for all metrics. This was confirmed by external validation using digitized biopsy slide images from a clinical trial [NRG Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG)] (NRG/RTOG 0521, N = 750) via both qualitative and quantitative analyses (p < 0.05). A comprehensive review of model outputs revealed morphologically driven decision making that adversely affected model performance. M<sup>B</sup> appeared to be challenged with the analysis of open gland structures, whereas M<sup>R</sup> appeared to be challenged with closed gland structures, indicating potential morphological variation between the training sets. These findings suggest that differences in morphology and heterogeneity necessitate the need for more tailored, sample-specific (i.e. biopsy and surgical) machine learning models. © 2024 The Author(s). The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

The Journal of PathologyVol. 265(2)
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (US), Fox Chase Cancer Center (US), Emory Healthcare (US), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US), Harvard University (US), University of California, San Francisco (US), Medical College of Wisconsin (US), Veterans Health Administration (US), London Health Sciences Centre (CA), Massachusetts General Hospital (US), WellSpan Health (US), NRG Oncology (US), Indiana University Indianapolis (US), Winship Cancer Institute, Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis (US), Case Western Reserve University (US), University of Pennsylvania (US)
AstraZeneca, Emory University, Varian Medical Systems, Helsingin Yliopisto, NRG Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, National Cancer Institute, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, DOD Prostate Cancer Research Program, DOD Peer Reviewed Cancer Research Program
Openalex Percentile: Top 22%
Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
0.84
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.