Literature DB >> 31222166

Deep learning assisted mitotic counting for breast cancer.

Maschenka C A Balkenhol1, David Tellez2, Willem Vreuls3, Pieter C Clahsen4, Hans Pinckaers2, Francesco Ciompi2, Peter Bult2, Jeroen A W M van der Laak2,5.   

Abstract

As part of routine histological grading, for every invasive breast cancer the mitotic count is assessed by counting mitoses in the (visually selected) region with the highest proliferative activity. Because this procedure is prone to subjectivity, the present study compares visual mitotic counting with deep learning based automated mitotic counting and fully automated hotspot selection. Two cohorts were used in this study. Cohort A comprised 90 prospectively included tumors which were selected based on the mitotic frequency scores given during routine glass slide diagnostics. This pathologist additionally assessed the mitotic count in these tumors in whole slide images (WSI) within a preselected hotspot. A second observer performed the same procedures on this cohort. The preselected hotspot was generated by a convolutional neural network (CNN) trained to detect all mitotic figures in digitized hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) sections. The second cohort comprised a multicenter, retrospective TNBC cohort (n = 298), of which the mitotic count was assessed by three independent observers on glass slides. The same CNN was applied on this cohort and the absolute number of mitotic figures in the hotspot was compared to the averaged mitotic count of the observers. Baseline interobserver agreement for glass slide assessment in cohort A was good (kappa 0.689; 95% CI 0.580-0.799). Using the CNN generated hotspot in WSI, the agreement score increased to 0.814 (95% CI 0.719-0.909). Automated counting by the CNN in comparison with observers counting in the predefined hotspot region yielded an average kappa of 0.724. We conclude that manual mitotic counting is not affected by assessment modality (glass slides, WSI) and that counting mitotic figures in WSI is feasible. Using a predefined hotspot area considerably improves reproducibility. Also, fully automated assessment of mitotic score appears to be feasible without introducing additional bias or variability.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31222166     DOI: 10.1038/s41374-019-0275-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lab Invest        ISSN: 0023-6837            Impact factor:   5.662


  19 in total

Review 1.  Deep learning in histopathology: the path to the clinic.

Authors:  Jeroen van der Laak; Geert Litjens; Francesco Ciompi
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2021-05-14       Impact factor: 53.440

Review 2.  Artificial intelligence in histopathology: enhancing cancer research and clinical oncology.

Authors:  Artem Shmatko; Narmin Ghaffari Laleh; Moritz Gerstung; Jakob Nikolas Kather
Journal:  Nat Cancer       Date:  2022-09-22

3.  Predictors of Sentinel Lymph Node Metastasis in Patients with Thin Melanoma: An International Multi-institutional Collaboration.

Authors:  Richard J B Walker; Nicole J Look Hong; Marc Moncrieff; Alexander C J van Akkooi; Evan Jost; Carolyn Nessim; Winan J van Houdt; Emma H A Stahlie; Chanhee Seo; May Lynn Quan; J Gregory McKinnon; Frances C Wright; Michail N Mavros
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2022-06-08       Impact factor: 4.339

4.  Automated assessment of Ki-67 proliferation index in neuroendocrine tumors by deep learning.

Authors:  Tiina Vesterinen; Jenni Säilä; Sami Blom; Mirkka Pennanen; Helena Leijon; Johanna Arola
Journal:  APMIS       Date:  2021-11-22       Impact factor: 3.428

5.  Spatial transcriptomics inferred from pathology whole-slide images links tumor heterogeneity to survival in breast and lung cancer.

Authors:  Alona Levy-Jurgenson; Xavier Tekpli; Vessela N Kristensen; Zohar Yakhini
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-11-02       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Deep learning-based grading of ductal carcinoma in situ in breast histopathology images.

Authors:  Suzanne C Wetstein; Nikolas Stathonikos; Josien P W Pluim; Yujing J Heng; Natalie D Ter Hoeve; Celien P H Vreuls; Paul J van Diest; Mitko Veta
Journal:  Lab Invest       Date:  2021-02-19       Impact factor: 5.662

7.  System for quantitative evaluation of DAB&H-stained breast cancer biopsy digital images (CHISEL).

Authors:  Lukasz Roszkowiak; Anna Korzynska; Krzysztof Siemion; Jakub Zak; Dorota Pijanowska; Ramon Bosch; Marylene Lejeune; Carlos Lopez
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-04-29       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Deep learning assessment of breast terminal duct lobular unit involution: Towards automated prediction of breast cancer risk.

Authors:  Suzanne C Wetstein; Allison M Onken; Christina Luffman; Gabrielle M Baker; Michael E Pyle; Kevin H Kensler; Ying Liu; Bart Bakker; Ruud Vlutters; Marinus B van Leeuwen; Laura C Collins; Stuart J Schnitt; Josien P W Pluim; Rulla M Tamimi; Yujing J Heng; Mitko Veta
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-04-15       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Prognostic value of histopathological DCIS features in a large-scale international interrater reliability study.

Authors:  Emma J Groen; Jan Hudecek; Lennart Mulder; Maartje van Seijen; Mathilde M Almekinders; Stoyan Alexov; Anikó Kovács; Ales Ryska; Zsuzsanna Varga; Francisco-Javier Andreu Navarro; Simonetta Bianchi; Willem Vreuls; Eva Balslev; Max V Boot; Janina Kulka; Ewa Chmielik; Ellis Barbé; Mathilda J de Rooij; Winand Vos; Andrea Farkas; Natalja E Leeuwis-Fedorovich; Peter Regitnig; Pieter J Westenend; Loes F S Kooreman; Cecily Quinn; Giuseppe Floris; Gábor Cserni; Paul J van Diest; Esther H Lips; Michael Schaapveld; Jelle Wesseling
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2020-07-30       Impact factor: 4.872

Review 10.  Counting mitoses: SI(ze) matters!

Authors:  Ian A Cree; Puay Hoon Tan; William D Travis; Pieter Wesseling; Yukako Yagi; Valerie A White; Dilani Lokuhetty; Richard A Scolyer
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2021-06-02       Impact factor: 7.842

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.