George Lee1, Robert W Veltri2, Guangjing Zhu2, Sahirzeeshan Ali3, Jonathan I Epstein2, Anant Madabhushi4. 1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA. Electronic address: george.lee@case.edu. 2. Department of Urology, James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 3. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA. 4. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA. Electronic address: anant.madabhushi@case.edu.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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