Literature DB >> 28753763

Nuclear Shape and Architecture in Benign Fields Predict Biochemical Recurrence in Prostate Cancer Patients Following Radical Prostatectomy: Preliminary Findings.

George Lee1, Robert W Veltri2, Guangjing Zhu2, Sahirzeeshan Ali3, Jonathan I Epstein2, Anant Madabhushi4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Gleason scoring represents the standard for diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa) and assessment of prognosis following radical prostatectomy (RP), but it does not account for patterns in neighboring normal-appearing benign fields that may be predictive of disease recurrence.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate (1) whether computer-extracted image features within tumor-adjacent benign regions on digital pathology images could predict recurrence in PCa patients after surgery and (2) whether a tumor plus adjacent benign signature (TABS) could better predict recurrence compared with Gleason score or features from benign or cancerous regions alone. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We studied 140 tissue microarray cores (0.6mm each) from 70 PCa patients following surgery between 2000 and 2004 with up to 14 yr of follow-up. Overall, 22 patients experienced recurrence (biochemical [prostate-specific antigen], local, or distant recurrence and cancer death) and 48 did not. INTERVENTION: RP was performed in all patients. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The top 10 features identified as most predictive of recurrence within both the benign and cancerous regions were combined into a 10-feature signature (TABS). Computer-extracted nuclear shape and architectural features from cancerous regions, adjacent benign fields, and TABS were evaluated via random forest classification accuracy and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Tumor-adjacent benign field features were predictive of recurrence (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]: 0.72). Tumor-field nuclear shape descriptors and benign-field local nuclear arrangement were the predominant features found for TABS (AUC: 0.77). Combining TABS with Gleason sum further improved identification of recurrence (AUC: 0.81). All experiments were performed using threefold cross-validation without independent test set validation.
CONCLUSIONS: Computer-extracted nuclear features within cancerous and benign regions predict recurrence following RP. Furthermore, TABS was shown to provide added value to common predictors including Gleason sum and Kattan and Stephenson nomograms. PATIENT
SUMMARY: Future studies may benefit from evaluation of benign regions proximal to the tumor on surgically excised prostate cancer tissue for assessing risk of disease recurrence.
Copyright © 2016 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Digital pathology; Field effect; Markers; Prognosis; Prostate cancer; Quantitative histomorphometry; Radical prostatectomy; Recurrence

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 28753763      PMCID: PMC5537035          DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2016.05.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol Focus        ISSN: 2405-4569


  23 in total

1.  Cell-graph mining for breast tissue modeling and classification.

Authors:  Cagatay Bilgin; Cigdem Demir; Chandandeep Nagi; Bulent Yener
Journal:  Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc       Date:  2007

2.  Nuclear roundness variance predicts prostate cancer progression, metastasis, and death: A prospective evaluation with up to 25 years of follow-up after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Robert W Veltri; Sumit Isharwal; M Craig Miller; Jonathan I Epstein; Alan W Partin
Journal:  Prostate       Date:  2010-09-01       Impact factor: 4.104

Review 3.  Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine.

Authors:  M H Zweig; G Campbell
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 8.327

4.  Tumour genomic and microenvironmental heterogeneity for integrated prediction of 5-year biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Emilie Lalonde; Adrian S Ishkanian; Jenna Sykes; Michael Fraser; Helen Ross-Adams; Nicholas Erho; Mark J Dunning; Silvia Halim; Alastair D Lamb; Nathalie C Moon; Gaetano Zafarana; Anne Y Warren; Xianyue Meng; John Thoms; Michal R Grzadkowski; Alejandro Berlin; Cherry L Have; Varune R Ramnarine; Cindy Q Yao; Chad A Malloff; Lucia L Lam; Honglei Xie; Nicholas J Harding; Denise Y F Mak; Kenneth C Chu; Lauren C Chong; Dorota H Sendorek; Christine P'ng; Colin C Collins; Jeremy A Squire; Igor Jurisica; Colin Cooper; Rosalind Eeles; Melania Pintilie; Alan Dal Pra; Elai Davicioni; Wan L Lam; Michael Milosevic; David E Neal; Theodorus van der Kwast; Paul C Boutros; Robert G Bristow
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2014-11-13       Impact factor: 41.316

5.  Multiinstitutional validation of the UCSF cancer of the prostate risk assessment for prediction of recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Matthew R Cooperberg; Stephen J Freedland; David J Pasta; Eric P Elkin; Joseph C Presti; Christopher L Amling; Martha K Terris; William J Aronson; Christopher J Kane; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2006-11-15       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  Long-term risk of clinical progression after biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy: the impact of time from surgery to recurrence.

Authors:  Stephen A Boorjian; R Houston Thompson; Matthew K Tollefson; Laureano J Rangel; Eric J Bergstralh; Michael L Blute; R Jeffrey Karnes
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2011-02-22       Impact factor: 20.096

7.  Prostate cancer-specific survival following salvage radiotherapy vs observation in men with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Bruce J Trock; Misop Han; Stephen J Freedland; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Theodore L DeWeese; Alan W Partin; Patrick C Walsh
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2008-06-18       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Univariate shrinkage in the cox model for high dimensional data.

Authors:  Robert J Tibshirani
Journal:  Stat Appl Genet Mol Biol       Date:  2009-04-14

9.  Prostate cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy for patients treated in the prostate-specific antigen era.

Authors:  Andrew J Stephenson; Michael W Kattan; James A Eastham; Fernando J Bianco; Ofer Yossepowitch; Andrew J Vickers; Eric A Klein; David P Wood; Peter T Scardino
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-07-27       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Stromal epigenetic dysregulation is sufficient to initiate mouse prostate cancer via paracrine Wnt signaling.

Authors:  Yang Zong; Jiaoti Huang; Devipriya Sankarasharma; Teppei Morikawa; Masashi Fukayama; Jonathan I Epstein; Kiran K Chada; Owen N Witte
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-11-26       Impact factor: 11.205

View more
  17 in total

1.  Nuclear shape and orientation features from H&E images predict survival in early-stage estrogen receptor-positive breast cancers.

Authors:  Cheng Lu; David Romo-Bucheli; Xiangxue Wang; Andrew Janowczyk; Shridar Ganesan; Hannah Gilmore; David Rimm; Anant Madabhushi
Journal:  Lab Invest       Date:  2018-06-29       Impact factor: 5.662

2.  Quantitative nuclear histomorphometry predicts oncotype DX risk categories for early stage ER+ breast cancer.

Authors:  Jon Whitney; German Corredor; Andrew Janowczyk; Shridar Ganesan; Scott Doyle; John Tomaszewski; Michael Feldman; Hannah Gilmore; Anant Madabhushi
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2018-05-30       Impact factor: 4.430

3.  Computationally Derived Image Signature of Stromal Morphology Is Prognostic of Prostate Cancer Recurrence Following Prostatectomy in African American Patients.

Authors:  Hersh K Bhargava; Patrick Leo; Robin Elliott; Andrew Janowczyk; Jon Whitney; Sanjay Gupta; Pingfu Fu; Kosj Yamoah; Francesca Khani; Brian D Robinson; Timothy R Rebbeck; Michael Feldman; Priti Lal; Anant Madabhushi
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2020-03-05       Impact factor: 12.531

4.  Reimagining T Staging Through Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Image Processing Approaches in Digital Pathology.

Authors:  Kaustav Bera; Ian Katz; Anant Madabhushi
Journal:  JCO Clin Cancer Inform       Date:  2020-11

Review 5.  Applications of machine learning in drug discovery and development.

Authors:  Jessica Vamathevan; Dominic Clark; Paul Czodrowski; Ian Dunham; Edgardo Ferran; George Lee; Bin Li; Anant Madabhushi; Parantu Shah; Michaela Spitzer; Shanrong Zhao
Journal:  Nat Rev Drug Discov       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 84.694

6.  Computerized spermatogenesis staging (CSS) of mouse testis sections via quantitative histomorphological analysis.

Authors:  Jun Xu; Haoda Lu; Haixin Li; Chaoyang Yan; Xiangxue Wang; Min Zang; Dirk G de Rooij; Anant Madabhushi; Eugene Yujun Xu
Journal:  Med Image Anal       Date:  2020-10-10       Impact factor: 8.545

Review 7.  Advances in the computational and molecular understanding of the prostate cancer cell nucleus.

Authors:  Neil M Carleton; George Lee; Anant Madabhushi; Robert W Veltri
Journal:  J Cell Biochem       Date:  2018-06-20       Impact factor: 4.429

8.  Training a cell-level classifier for detecting basal-cell carcinoma by combining human visual attention maps with low-level handcrafted features.

Authors:  Germán Corredor; Jon Whitney; Viviana Arias; Anant Madabhushi; Eduardo Romero
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2017-03-11

Review 9.  Artificial intelligence in digital pathology - new tools for diagnosis and precision oncology.

Authors:  Kaustav Bera; Kurt A Schalper; David L Rimm; Vamsidhar Velcheti; Anant Madabhushi
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2019-08-09       Impact factor: 66.675

10.  Feature-driven local cell graph (FLocK): New computational pathology-based descriptors for prognosis of lung cancer and HPV status of oropharyngeal cancers.

Authors:  Cheng Lu; Can Koyuncu; German Corredor; Prateek Prasanna; Patrick Leo; XiangXue Wang; Andrew Janowczyk; Kaustav Bera; James Lewis; Vamsidhar Velcheti; Anant Madabhushi
Journal:  Med Image Anal       Date:  2020-11-16       Impact factor: 8.545

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.