Literature DB >> 20493759

High-throughput detection of prostate cancer in histological sections using probabilistic pairwise Markov models.

James P Monaco1, John E Tomaszewski, Michael D Feldman, Ian Hagemann, Mehdi Moradi, Parvin Mousavi, Alexander Boag, Chris Davidson, Purang Abolmaesumi, Anant Madabhushi.   

Abstract

In this paper we present a high-throughput system for detecting regions of carcinoma of the prostate (CaP) in HSs from radical prostatectomies (RPs) using probabilistic pairwise Markov models (PPMMs), a novel type of Markov random field (MRF). At diagnostic resolution a digitized HS can contain 80Kx70K pixels - far too many for current automated Gleason grading algorithms to process. However, grading can be separated into two distinct steps: (1) detecting cancerous regions and (2) then grading these regions. The detection step does not require diagnostic resolution and can be performed much more quickly. Thus, we introduce a CaP detection system capable of analyzing an entire digitized whole-mount HS (2x1.75cm(2)) in under three minutes (on a desktop computer) while achieving a CaP detection sensitivity and specificity of 0.87 and 0.90, respectively. We obtain this high-throughput by tailoring the system to analyze the HSs at low resolution (8microm per pixel). This motivates the following algorithm: (Step 1) glands are segmented, (Step 2) the segmented glands are classified as malignant or benign, and (Step 3) the malignant glands are consolidated into continuous regions. The classification of individual glands leverages two features: gland size and the tendency for proximate glands to share the same class. The latter feature describes a spatial dependency which we model using a Markov prior. Typically, Markov priors are expressed as the product of potential functions. Unfortunately, potential functions are mathematical abstractions, and constructing priors through their selection becomes an ad hoc procedure, resulting in simplistic models such as the Potts. Addressing this problem, we introduce PPMMs which formulate priors in terms of probability density functions, allowing the creation of more sophisticated models. To demonstrate the efficacy of our CaP detection system and assess the advantages of using a PPMM prior instead of the Potts, we alternately incorporate both priors into our algorithm and rigorously evaluate system performance, extracting statistics from over 6000 simulations run across 40 RP specimens. Perhaps the most indicative result is as follows: at a CaP sensitivity of 0.87 the accompanying false positive rates of the system when alternately employing the PPMM and Potts priors are 0.10 and 0.20, respectively. Copyright 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20493759      PMCID: PMC2916937          DOI: 10.1016/j.media.2010.04.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Image Anal        ISSN: 1361-8415            Impact factor:   8.545


  29 in total

1.  Segmentation of brain MR images through a hidden Markov random field model and the expectation-maximization algorithm.

Authors:  Y Zhang; M Brady; S Smith
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 10.048

2.  Similarity measurement method for the classification of architecturally differentiated images.

Authors:  Y Smith; G Zajicek; M Werman; G Pizov; Y Sherman
Journal:  Comput Biomed Res       Date:  1999-02

3.  Strong Markov random field model.

Authors:  Rupert Paget
Journal:  IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 6.226

4.  Stochastic relaxation, gibbs distributions, and the bayesian restoration of images.

Authors:  S Geman; D Geman
Journal:  IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell       Date:  1984-06       Impact factor: 6.226

Review 5.  Gleason grading of prostate cancer in needle biopsies or radical prostatectomy specimens: contemporary approach, current clinical significance and sources of pathology discrepancies.

Authors:  Rodolfo Montironi; Roberta Mazzuccheli; Marina Scarpelli; Antonio Lopez-Beltran; Giovanni Fellegara; Ferran Algaba
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 5.588

Review 6.  The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma.

Authors:  Jonathan I Epstein; William C Allsbrook; Mahul B Amin; Lars L Egevad
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 6.394

7.  A comparative study of energy minimization methods for Markov random fields with smoothness-based priors.

Authors:  Richard Szeliski; Ramin Zabih; Daniel Scharstein; Olga Veksler; Vladimir Kolmogorov; Aseem Agarwala; Marshall Tappen; Carsten Rother
Journal:  IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 6.226

8.  A hierarchical spectral clustering and nonlinear dimensionality reduction scheme for detection of prostate cancer from magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS).

Authors:  Pallavi Tiwari; Mark Rosen; Anant Madabhushi
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  Classification of prostatic carcinomas.

Authors:  D F Gleason
Journal:  Cancer Chemother Rep       Date:  1966-03

10.  An image analysis approach for automatic malignancy determination of prostate pathological images.

Authors:  Reza Farjam; Hamid Soltanian-Zadeh; Kourosh Jafari-Khouzani; Reza A Zoroofi
Journal:  Cytometry B Clin Cytom       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 3.058

View more
  41 in total

1.  Automated computer-derived prostate volumes from MR imaging data: comparison with radiologist-derived MR imaging and pathologic specimen volumes.

Authors:  Julie C Bulman; Robert Toth; Amish D Patel; B Nicolas Bloch; Colm J McMahon; Long Ngo; Anant Madabhushi; Neil M Rofsky
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Automatic cancer detection on digital histopathology images of mid-gland radical prostatectomy specimens.

Authors:  Wenchao Han; Carol Johnson; Andrew Warner; Mena Gaed; Jose A Gomez; Madeleine Moussa; Joseph Chin; Stephen Pautler; Glenn Bauman; Aaron D Ward
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2020-07-16

3.  Evaluating stability of histomorphometric features across scanner and staining variations: prostate cancer diagnosis from whole slide images.

Authors:  Patrick Leo; George Lee; Natalie N C Shih; Robin Elliott; Michael D Feldman; Anant Madabhushi
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2016-10-24

4.  Multi-kernel graph embedding for detection, Gleason grading of prostate cancer via MRI/MRS.

Authors:  Pallavi Tiwari; John Kurhanewicz; Anant Madabhushi
Journal:  Med Image Anal       Date:  2012-12-13       Impact factor: 8.545

5.  Diagnostic assessment of osteosarcoma chemoresistance based on Virtual Clinical Trials.

Authors:  K A Rejniak; M C Lloyd; D R Reed; M M Bui
Journal:  Med Hypotheses       Date:  2015-06-24       Impact factor: 1.538

6.  Gland segmentation in prostate histopathological images.

Authors:  Malay Singh; Emarene Mationg Kalaw; Danilo Medina Giron; Kian-Tai Chong; Chew Lim Tan; Hwee Kuan Lee
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2017-06-21

7.  COMPARISON OF SPARSE CODING AND KERNEL METHODS FOR HISTOPATHOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION OF GLIOBASTOMA MULTIFORME.

Authors:  Ju Han; Hang Chang; Leandro Loss; Kai Zhang; Fredrick L Baehner; Joe W Gray; Paul Spellman; Bahram Parvin
Journal:  Proc IEEE Int Symp Biomed Imaging       Date:  2011-06-09

8.  Computer aided analysis of prostate histopathology images Gleason grading especially for Gleason score 7.

Authors:  Jian Ren; Evita T Sadimin; Daihou Wang; Jonathan I Epstein; David J Foran; Xin Qi
Journal:  Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc       Date:  2015

9.  Class-specific weighting for Markov random field estimation: application to medical image segmentation.

Authors:  James P Monaco; Anant Madabhushi
Journal:  Med Image Anal       Date:  2012-07-16       Impact factor: 8.545

10.  Machine learning approaches to analyze histological images of tissues from radical prostatectomies.

Authors:  Arkadiusz Gertych; Nathan Ing; Zhaoxuan Ma; Thomas J Fuchs; Sadri Salman; Sambit Mohanty; Sanica Bhele; Adriana Velásquez-Vacca; Mahul B Amin; Beatrice S Knudsen
Journal:  Comput Med Imaging Graph       Date:  2015-08-20       Impact factor: 4.790

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.