Dataset Information

Assessment of Digital Pathology Imaging Biomarkers Associated with Breast Cancer Histologic Grade.

ABSTRACT: Evaluating histologic grade for breast cancer diagnosis is standard and associated with prognostic outcomes. Current challenges include the time required for manual microscopic evaluation and interobserver variability. This study proposes a computer-aided diagnostic (CAD) pipeline for grading tumors using artificial intelligence. There were 138 patients included in this retrospective study. Breast core biopsy slides were prepared using standard laboratory techniques, digitized, and pre-processed for analysis. Deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) were developed to identify the regions of interest containing malignant cells and to segment tumor nuclei. Imaging-based features associated with spatial parameters were extracted from the segmented regions of interest (ROIs). Clinical datasets and pathologic biomarkers (estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor 2) were collected from all study subjects. Pathologic, clinical, and imaging-based features were input into machine learning (ML) models to classify histologic grade, and model performances were tested against ground-truth labels at the patient-level. Classification performances were evaluated using receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Multiparametric feature sets, containing both clinical and imaging-based features, demonstrated high classification performance. Using imaging-derived markers alone, the classification performance demonstrated an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.745, while modeling these features with other pathologic biomarkers yielded an AUC of 0.836. These results demonstrate an association between tumor nuclear spatial features and tumor grade. If further validated, these systems may be implemented into pathology CADs and can assist pathologists to expeditiously grade tumors at the time of diagnosis and to help guide clinical decisions.

SUBMITTER: Lagree A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8628688 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Histological grading of breast cancer defines morphological subtypes informative of metastatic potential, although not without considerable inter-observer disagreement and clinical heterogeneity particularly among the moderately differentiated grade II (G2) tumors. We posited that a gene expression signature capable of discerning tumors of grade I (G1) and grade III (G3) histology might provide a more objective measure of grade with prognostic benefit for patients with moderately differentiated disease. To this end, we studied the expression profiles of 347 primary invasive breast tumors analyzed on Affymetrix microarrays. Using class prediction algorithms, we identified 264 robust grade-associated markers, six of which could accurately classify G1 and G3 tumors, and separate G2 tumors into two highly discriminant classes (termed G2a and G2b genetic grades) with patient survival outcomes highly similar to those with G1 and G3 histology, respectively. Statistical analysis of conventional clinical variables further distinguished G2a and G2b subtypes from each other, but also from histologic G1 and G3 tumors. In multivariate analyses, genetic grade was consistently found to be an independent prognostic indicator of disease recurrence comparable to that of lymph node status and tumor size. When incorporated into the Nottingham Prognostic Index, genetic grade enhanced detection of patients with less harmful tumors, likely to benefit little from adjuvant therapy. Our findings show that a genetic grade signature can improve prognosis and therapeutic planning for breast cancer patients, and support the view that low and high grade disease, as defined genetically, reflect independent pathobiological entities rather than a continuum of cancer progression. Three separate breast cancer cohorts were analyzed: 1) Uppsala (n=249), 2) Stockholm (n=58), 3) Singapore (n=40). The Uppsala and Singapore data can be accessed here. The Stockholm cohort data can be accessed at GEO Series GSE1456. Keywords: Tumor sample comparisons

Project description:ImportanceMany US radiologists have screening mammography recall rates above the expert-recommended threshold of 12%. The influence of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) on the distribution of radiologist recall rates is uncertain.ObjectiveTo evaluate radiologists' recall and cancer detection rates before and after beginning interpretation of DBT examinations.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study included 198 radiologists from 104 radiology facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium who interpreted 251?384 DBT and 2?000?681 digital mammography (DM) screening examinations from 2009 to 2017, including 126 radiologists (63.6%) who interpreted DBT examinations during the study period and 72 (36.4%) who exclusively interpreted DM examinations (to adjust for secular trends). Data were analyzed from April 2018 to July 2019.ExposuresDigital breast tomosynthesis and DM screening examinations.Main outcomes and measuresRecall rate and cancer detection rate.ResultsA total of 198 radiologists interpreted 2?252?065 DM and DBT examinations (2?000?681 [88.8%] DM examinations; 251?384 [11.2%] DBT examinations; 710?934 patients [31.6%] aged 50-59 years; 1?448?981 [64.3%] non-Hispanic white). Among the 126 radiologists (63.6%) who interpreted DBT examinations, 83 (65.9%) had unadjusted DM recall rates of no more than 12% before using DBT, with a median (interquartile range) recall rate of 10.0% (7.5%-13.0%). On DBT examinations, 96 (76.2%) had an unadjusted recall rate of no more than 12%, with a median (interquartile range) recall rate of 8.8% (6.3%-11.3%). A secular trend in recall rate was observed, with the multivariable-adjusted risk of recall on screening examinations declining by 1.2% (95% CI, 0.9%-1.5%) per year. After adjusting for examination characteristics and secular trends, recall rates were 15% lower on DBT examinations compared with DM examinations interpreted before DBT use (relative risk, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.83-0.87). Adjusted recall rates were significantly lower on DBT examinations compared with DM examinations interpreted before DBT use for 45 radiologists (35.7%) and significantly higher for 18 (14.3%); 63 (50.0%) had no statistically significant change. The unadjusted cancer detection rate on DBT was 5.3 per 1000 examinations (95% CI, 5.0-5.7 per 1000 examinations) compared with 4.7 per 1000 examinations (95% CI, 4.6-4.8 per 1000 examinations) on DM examinations interpreted before DM use (multivariable-adjusted risk ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.11-1.33).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, DBT was associated with an overall decrease in recall rate and an increase in cancer detection rate. However, our results indicated that there is wide variability among radiologists, including a subset of radiologists who experienced increased recall rates on DBT examinations. Radiology practices should audit radiologist DBT screening performance and consider additional DBT training for radiologists whose performance does not improve as expected.

Project description:Lymphovascular invasion (LVI) and histologic grade are clinical parameters of high prognostic value in breast cancer and indicate the level of tumor aggressiveness. Many studies have focused on the association of breast cancer subtypes with gene expression and chromosomal profiles, but considerably less genomic information is available regarding traditional prognostic factors such as histologic grade and LVI. We studied by array-CGH a group of 57 invasive ductal carcinomas of the breast to outline the DNA copy number aberration (CNA) profile linked to high histologic grades and LVI. Selected CNAs were validated using real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR). Furthermore, gene expression analysis was performed in a subset of 32 of these tumors, and findings were integrated with array-CGH data. Our findings indicated an accumulation of genomic alterations in high-grade breast tumors compared to low-grade samples. Grade III tumors showed higher number of CNAs and larger aberrations than low-grade tumors and displayed a wide range of chromosomal aberrations, which were mainly 5p, 8q, 10p, 17q12, and 19 gains, and 3p, 4, 5q proximal, 9p, 11p, 18q, and 21 losses. The presence of LVI, a well-established prognostic marker, was not significantly associated with increased genomic instability in comparison to breast tumors negative for LVI, considering the total number of chromosomal alterations. However, a slightly increase in the frequency of specific alterations could be detected in LVI-positive group, such as gains at 5p, 16p, 17q12, and 19, and losses at 8p, 11q, 18q, and 21. Three newly reported small-scale rearrangements were detected in high-risk tumors (LVI-positive grade III) harboring putative breast cancer genes (amplicons at 4q13.3 and 11p11.2, and a deletion at 12p12.3). Furthermore, gene expression analysis uncovered networks highlighting S100A8, MMP1, and MED1 as promising candidate genes involved in high-grade and LVI-positive tumors. In summary, a group of genomic regions could be associated with high-risk tumors, and expression analysis pinpointed candidate genes deserving further investigation. The data has shed some light on the molecular players involved in two highly relevant prognostic factors and may further add to the understanding of the mechanisms of breast cancer aggressiveness.

Dataset Information

Assessment of Digital Pathology Imaging Biomarkers Associated with Breast Cancer Histologic Grade.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets