Jin Tae Kwak1, Stephen M Hewitt2, André Alexander Kajdacsy-Balla3, Saurabh Sinha4, Rohit Bhargava5. 1. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Sejong University, Seoul, 05006, Korea. 2. Tissue Array Research Program, Laboratory of Pathology, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, 20850, USA. 3. Department of Pathology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA. 4. Department of Computer Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2122 Siebel Center, 201 N. Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA. sinhas@illinois.edu. 5. Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, Department of Bioengineering, Department of Mechanical Science and Engineering, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering and University of Illinois Cancer Center, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 4265 Beckman Institute 405 N. Mathews Avenue, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA. rxb@illinois.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The current practice of histopathology review is limited in speed and accuracy. The current diagnostic paradigm does not fully describe the complex and complicated patterns of cancer. To address these needs, we develop an automated and objective system that facilitates a comprehensive and easy information management and decision-making. We also develop a tissue similarity measure scheme to broaden our understanding of tissue characteristics. RESULTS: The system includes a database of previously evaluated prostate tissue images, clinical information and a tissue retrieval process. In the system, a tissue is characterized by its morphology. The retrieval process seeks to find the closest matching cases with the tissue of interest. Moreover, we define 9 morphologic criteria by which a pathologist arrives at a histomorphologic diagnosis. Based on the 9 criteria, true tissue similarity is determined and serves as the gold standard of tissue retrieval. Here, we found a minimum of 4 and 3 matching cases, out of 5, for ~80 % and ~60 % of the queries when a match was defined as the tissue similarity score ≥5 and ≥6, respectively. We were also able to examine the relationship between tissues beyond the Gleason grading system due to the tissue similarity scoring system. CONCLUSIONS: Providing the closest matching cases and their clinical information with pathologists will help to conduct consistent and reliable diagnoses. Thus, we expect the system to facilitate quality maintenance and quality improvement of cancer pathology.
BACKGROUND: The current practice of histopathology review is limited in speed and accuracy. The current diagnostic paradigm does not fully describe the complex and complicated patterns of cancer. To address these needs, we develop an automated and objective system that facilitates a comprehensive and easy information management and decision-making. We also develop a tissue similarity measure scheme to broaden our understanding of tissue characteristics. RESULTS: The system includes a database of previously evaluated prostate tissue images, clinical information and a tissue retrieval process. In the system, a tissue is characterized by its morphology. The retrieval process seeks to find the closest matching cases with the tissue of interest. Moreover, we define 9 morphologic criteria by which a pathologist arrives at a histomorphologic diagnosis. Based on the 9 criteria, true tissue similarity is determined and serves as the gold standard of tissue retrieval. Here, we found a minimum of 4 and 3 matching cases, out of 5, for ~80 % and ~60 % of the queries when a match was defined as the tissue similarity score ≥5 and ≥6, respectively. We were also able to examine the relationship between tissues beyond the Gleason grading system due to the tissue similarity scoring system. CONCLUSIONS: Providing the closest matching cases and their clinical information with pathologists will help to conduct consistent and reliable diagnoses. Thus, we expect the system to facilitate quality maintenance and quality improvement of cancer pathology.
Authors: Gustavo Ayala; Jennifer A Tuxhorn; Thomas M Wheeler; Anna Frolov; Peter T Scardino; Makoto Ohori; Marcus Wheeler; Jeffrey Spitler; David R Rowley Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2003-10-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Ming Y Lu; Drew F K Williamson; Chengkuan Chen; Tiffany Y Chen; Andrew J Schaumberg; Faisal Mahmood Journal: Nat Biomed Eng Date: 2022-10-10 Impact factor: 29.234
Authors: Jiayun Li; William Speier; King Chung Ho; Karthik V Sarma; Arkadiusz Gertych; Beatrice S Knudsen; Corey W Arnold Journal: Comput Med Imaging Graph Date: 2018-09-03 Impact factor: 4.790