Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Wulczyn E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9053226 | biostudies-literature | 2021

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Wulczyn Ellery E Nagpal Kunal K Symonds Matthew M Moran Melissa M Plass Markus M Reihs Robert R Nader Farah F Tan Fraser F Cai Yuannan Y Brown Trissia T Flament-Auvigne Isabelle I Amin Mahul B MB Stumpe Martin C MC Müller Heimo H Regitnig Peter P Holzinger Andreas A Corrado Greg S GS Peng Lily H LH Chen Po-Hsuan Cameron PC Steiner David F DF Zatloukal Kurt K Liu Yun Y Mermel Craig H CH

Communications medicine 20210630

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>In this study, we developed a system to predict prostate cancer-specific mortality via ...[more]

PMID: 35602201

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe Gleason grading system has been the most reliable tool for the prognosis of prostate cancer since its development. However, its clinical application remains limited by interobserver variability in grading and quantification, which has negative consequences for risk assessment and clinical management of prostate cancer.ObjectiveTo examine the impact of an artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted approach to prostate cancer grading and quantification.Design, setting, and participantsThis diagnostic study was conducted at the University of Wisconsin-Madison from August 2, 2017, to December 30, 2019. The study chronologically selected 589 men with biopsy-confirmed prostate cancer who received care in the University of Wisconsin Health System between January 1, 2005, and February 28, 2017. A total of 1000 biopsy slides (1 or 2 slides per patient) were selected and scanned to create digital whole-slide images, which were used to develop and validate a deep convolutional neural network-based AI-powered platform. The whole-slide images were divided into a training set (n = 838) and validation set (n = 162). Three experienced academic urological pathologists (W.H., K.A.I., and R.H., hereinafter referred to as pathologists 1, 2, and 3, respectively) were involved in the validation. Data were collected between December 29, 2018, and December 20, 2019, and analyzed from January 4, 2020, to March 1, 2021.Main outcomes and measuresAccuracy of prostate cancer detection by the AI-powered platform and comparison of prostate cancer grading and quantification performed by the 3 pathologists using manual vs AI-assisted methods.ResultsAmong 589 men with biopsy slides, the mean (SD) age was 63.8 (8.2) years, the mean (SD) prebiopsy prostate-specific antigen level was 10.2 (16.2) ng/mL, and the mean (SD) total cancer volume was 15.4% (20.1%). The AI system was able to distinguish prostate cancer from benign prostatic epithelium and stroma with high accuracy at the patch-pixel level, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.88-0.95). The AI system achieved almost perfect agreement with the training pathologist (pathologist 1) in detecting prostate cancer at the patch-pixel level (weighted κ = 0.97; asymptotic 95% CI, 0.96-0.98) and in grading prostate cancer at the slide level (weighted κ = 0.98; asymptotic 95% CI, 0.96-1.00). Use of the AI-assisted method was associated with significant improvements in the concordance of prostate cancer grading and quantification between the 3 pathologists (eg, pathologists 1 and 2: 90.1% agreement using AI-assisted method vs 84.0% agreement using manual method; P < .001) and significantly higher weighted κ values for all pathologists (eg, pathologists 2 and 3: weighted κ = 0.92 [asymptotic 95% CI, 0.90-0.94] for AI-assisted method vs 0.76 [asymptotic 95% CI, 0.71-0.80] for manual method; P < .001) compared with the manual method.Conclusions and relevanceIn this diagnostic study, an AI-powered platform was able to detect, grade, and quantify prostate cancer with high accuracy and efficiency and was associated with significant reductions in interobserver variability. These results suggest that an AI-powered platform could potentially transform histopathological evaluation and improve risk stratification and clinical management of prostate cancer.

Project description:BackgroundDespite revisions in 2005 and 2014, the Gleason prostate cancer (PCa) grading system still has major deficiencies. Combining of Gleason scores into a three-tiered grouping (6, 7, 8-10) is used most frequently for prognostic and therapeutic purposes. The lowest score, assigned 6, may be misunderstood as a cancer in the middle of the grading scale, and 3+4=7 and 4+3=7 are often considered the same prognostic group.ObjectiveTo verify that a new grading system accurately produces a smaller number of grades with the most significant prognostic differences, using multi-institutional and multimodal therapy data.Design, setting, and participantsBetween 2005 and 2014, 20,845 consecutive men were treated by radical prostatectomy at five academic institutions; 5501 men were treated with radiotherapy at two academic institutions.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisOutcome was based on biochemical recurrence (BCR). The log-rank test assessed univariable differences in BCR by Gleason score. Separate univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards used four possible categorizations of Gleason scores.Results and limitationsIn the surgery cohort, we found large differences in recurrence rates between both Gleason 3+4 versus 4+3 and Gleason 8 versus 9. The hazard ratios relative to Gleason score 6 were 1.9, 5.1, 8.0, and 11.7 for Gleason scores 3+4, 4+3, 8, and 9-10, respectively. These differences were attenuated in the radiotherapy cohort as a whole due to increased adjuvant or neoadjuvant hormones for patients with high-grade disease but were clearly seen in patients undergoing radiotherapy only. A five-grade group system had the highest prognostic discrimination for all cohorts on both univariable and multivariable analysis. The major limitation was the unavoidable use of prostate-specific antigen BCR as an end point as opposed to cancer-related death.ConclusionsThe new PCa grading system has these benefits: more accurate grade stratification than current systems, simplified grading system of five grades, and lowest grade is 1, as opposed to 6, with the potential to reduce overtreatment of PCa.Patient summaryWe looked at outcomes for prostate cancer (PCa) treated with radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy and validated a new grading system with more accurate grade stratification than current systems, including a simplified grading system of five grades and a lowest grade is 1, as opposed to 6, with the potential to reduce overtreatment of PCa.

Dataset Information

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

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets