| Literature DB >> 33917035 |
Sarah M Ayyad1, Mohamed Shehata2, Ahmed Shalaby2, Mohamed Abou El-Ghar3, Mohammed Ghazal4, Moumen El-Melegy5, Nahla B Abdel-Hamid1, Labib M Labib1, H Arafat Ali1, Ayman El-Baz2.
Abstract
Prostate cancer is one of the most identified cancers and second most prevalent among cancer-related deaths of men worldwide. Early diagnosis and treatment are substantial to stop or handle the increase and spread of cancer cells in the body. Histopathological image diagnosis is a gold standard for detecting prostate cancer as it has different visual characteristics but interpreting those type of images needs a high level of expertise and takes too much time. One of the ways to accelerate such an analysis is by employing artificial intelligence (AI) through the use of computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) systems. The recent developments in artificial intelligence along with its sub-fields of conventional machine learning and deep learning provide new insights to clinicians and researchers, and an abundance of research is presented specifically for histopathology images tailored for prostate cancer. However, there is a lack of comprehensive surveys that focus on prostate cancer using histopathology images. In this paper, we provide a very comprehensive review of most, if not all, studies that handled the prostate cancer diagnosis using histopathological images. The survey begins with an overview of histopathological image preparation and its challenges. We also briefly review the computing techniques that are commonly applied in image processing, segmentation, feature selection, and classification that can help in detecting prostate malignancies in histopathological images.Entities:
Keywords: artificial intelligence; computational pathology; digital image analysis; histopathology images; image processing; prostate cancer
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33917035 PMCID: PMC8067693 DOI: 10.3390/s21082586
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Different Types of Medical Images (I) MRI image of prostate, (II) CT image of prostate, (III) X-Ray image of prostate pelvic area, (IV) Histopathological image of prostate tissue, and (V) Ultrasound for prostate biopsy.
A brief comparison between previous studies that proposed techniques for prostate histopathology images.
| Reference | Study Aim | Year | Strength | Weakness | Number of Patients |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | Automated classification using AdaBoost-based Ensemble Learning | 2016 | They integrated various feature descriptors, different color channels, and classifiers. | The algorithm able to discover only the critical regions on the digital slides | 50 |
| [ | A novel technique of labeling individual glands as malignant or benign was proposed. | 2013 | The technique can detect individual malignant gland units without relying on the neighboring histology and/or the spatial extent of the cancer. | It applied on a small number of radical prostatectomy patients | 8 |
| [ | Methodology for automated gland and nuclei segmentation | 2008 | They incorporate low-, high-level knowledge, and structural constraints imposed via domain knowledge. | They focused on a smaller cohort of cancer images and the dataset is private | 44 |
| [ | A new automated method for gland segmentation | 2017 | This method texture- and gland structure-based methods | The method failed in the images with the cribriform pattern. | 10 |
| [ | Multistage Segmentation Using Sample Entropy Texture Analysis | 2020 | An added advantage of performing multistage segmentation using sample entropy values is that one could easily separate epithelial nuclei from the stroma nuclei in standard H&E stained images without using any additional immunohistochemical (IHC) markers. | It requires identifying sample entropy features | 25 |
| [ | A new approach to identify prostate cancer areas in complex | 2014 | It utilizes the differential information embedded in the intensity characteristics of H&E images to quickly classify areas of the prostate tissue | Classification performance is tested using only KNN algorithm | 20 |
| [ | Ensemble based system for feature selection and classification | 2011 | They addressed the possibility of missing tumor regions through the use of tile-based probabilities and heat maps. | They focused only on texture feature selection and not used a voting schema for the ensemble classifier to enhance the probability scores | 14 |
| [ | A novel fully automated CAD system | 2006 | The proposed system represents the first attempt to automatically analyse histopathology across multiple scales | Their system trained using only 3 images | 6 |
| [ | A new multiclass approach | 2018 | It obtained improved grading results | It was evaluated based on its impact on the performance of the ensemble framework only | 213 |
| [ | A bag-of-words approach to classify images using SpeededUp Robust Features (SURF) | 2016 | The drawbacks of scale-invariant feature transform descriptor is overcome by the SURF descriptors causing an enhanced output accuracy | More features needed to be integrated with their feature extraction process to enhance accuracy of the classification | 75 |
| [ | An automatic method for segmentation and classification (Integration of Salp Swarm Optimization Algorithm and Rider Optimization Algorithm) | 2019 | Less time complexity | The maximal accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity does not exceed 90% | 20 |
| [ | A new region-based convolutional neural network framework for multi-task prediction | 2018 | The model achieved a detection accuracy 99.07% with an average area under the curve of 0.998 | They didn’t have patient-level information with which to perform a more rigorous patient-level stratification. | 40 |
| [ | An approach to nuclei segmentation using a conditional generative adversarial network | 2019 | It enforces higher-order consistency and captures better results when compared to conventional CNN models. | The model trained on small annotated patches | 34 |
| [ | Deep neural network algorithm for segmentation of individual nuclei | 2019 | A simple, fast, and parameter-free postprocessing procedure is done to get the final segmented nuclei as one 1000 × 1000 image can be segmented in less than 5 s. | The model is trained on a small number of images and has been tested on the images that may have different appearances | 30 |
| [ | Two novel approaches (combination of 4 types of feature descriptors, advanced machine-learning classifiers) to automatically identify prostate cancer | 2019 | They apply for the first time on prostate segmented glands, deep-learning algorithms modifying the popular VGG19 neural network. | The hand-driven learning approach employs SVM, where selecting the suitable kernel function could be tricky | 35 |
| [ | Automated Gleason grading via deep learning | 2018 | The study showed promising results especially for cases with heterogeneous Gleason patterns | The model trained on small mini patches at each iteration | 886 |
| [ | A deep learning system using the U-Net | 2019 | The system outperformed 10 out of 15 pathologists | The system was built upon three pretrained preprocessing modules, each of which still required pixel-wise annotations. | 1243 |
| [ | Predicting Gleason Score Using OverFeat Trained Deep CNN as feature extractor | 2016 | It is quite effective, even without from-scratch training on WSI tiles. | Small size of patches | 213 |
| [ | CNN to idiomatically identify the features | 2016 | The system is not constrained to H&E stained images and could easily be applied to immunohistochemistry | Some detection errors happen at the boundaries of the tissue | 254 |
| [ | DL model to detect cancer based on NASNetLarge architecture and high-quality annotated training dataset | 2020 | The model demonstrated its strong ability in prediction as accuracy attained 98% | The availability of fully digitalized cohorts represents a bottleneck | 400 |
| [ | A novel benchmark was designed for measuring and comparing the performances of different CNN models with the proposed PROMETEO | 2021 | Average processing time is less compared to other architectures | The network validated on 3-fold cross-validation method | 470 |
| [ | Novel features that include spatial inter-nuclei statistics and intra-nuclei properties for discriminating high-grade prostate cancer patterns | 2018 | The system tackled the inter-observer variability in prostate grading and can lead to a consensus-based training that improves both classification | lack examples of the highest grades of disease | 56 |
Figure 2Statistical distribution of studies used in this survey. (I) Number of studies per year; (II) Type of Publisher, where other denotes a preprint or URL; (III) Publisher, where other includes MDPI, Frontiers, AVES, etc.
Figure 3Illustrative figure showing the different preparation steps of histology slides.
Figure 4Examples of possible artifacts in histopathological images, where (I) contains chromatic aberrations and blurred regions; (II) contains noise, and (III) contains specimen segments folded and blurred regions.
Figure 5Illustrative figure showing the different levels of magnification (starting from 2× up to more than 40×) that might be applied on histopathological images.
Figure 6An illustrative block diagram of a typical prostate CAD System starting from the image acquisition until obtaining the final diagnosis.
Details of publicly available datasets containing prostate histopathology images.
| Dataset | URL | Magnification | Year | Dataset Size | Number of Patients |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Annotated dataset | [ | 40× | 2017 | 4 images for training and 2 for validation | 6 |
| Prostate Fused-MRI-Pathology | [ | 20× | Last modified 2021 | comprises a total of 28 3 Tesla T1-weighted, T2-weighted, Diffusion weighted and Dynamic Contrast Enhanced prostate MRI along with accompanying digitized histopathology images | 28 |
| TCGA-PRAD project | [ | 40× | Last modified 2020 | It includes includes 368 digitized prostate pathology slides | 14 |
| Prostate cANcer graDe Assessment (PANDA) Challenge | [ | 20× | 2020 | It consists of 11.000 cases for training, 400 cases for public test set, and 400 cases for private test set | NA |
| PESO dataset | [ | 10× | 2019 | It consists of 62 case for the training set and 40 case for the testing set | 102 |
Figure 7Taxonomy of different image preprocessing methods.
Figure 8Image segmentation taxonomy compromising different techniques that are used to segment histopathological images.
Summary of publications focused on feature selection of prostate histopathology images.
| Features Type | Reference | Year | Accuracy Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Texture | [ | 2011 | The AUC value is 0.91 for the first database and 0.96 for the second database. |
| [ | 2015 | The proposed method outperforms the classic SVM-RFE in accuracy and reducing redundancy. | |
| [ | 2018 | The proposed method attained a classification accuracy around 99%. | |
| Topological | [ | 2011 | The model attainted an average accuracy 90%. |
| [ | 2011 | The test classification results have an average of 96.76% | |
| [ | 2017 | The developed way achieved 93.0% training accuracy and 97.6% testing accuracy, for the tested cases. | |
| Morphological | [ | 2007 | Average accuracy for prostate cancer classification was 92.48% |
| [ | 2011 | The system achieved 0.55 under the precision recall curve measure | |
| [ | 2019 | The prediction model resulted an average accuracy of 90.2% | |
| Color | [ | 2012 | The proposed method attained an average of 86% accuracy in classifying a tissue pattern into different classes. |
| [ | 2006 | They achieved accuracy of 91.3% | |
| Color & Texture | [ | 2012 | The algorithm achieved an average of 86% and 93% of classification accuracy. |
| [ | 2012 | Classification accuracies are 97.6%, 96.6% and 87.3% when differentiating Gleason 4 versus Gleason 3, Gleason 5 versus Gleason 3, and Gleason 5 versus Gleason 4. | |
| Topological & Morphological & Texture | [ | 2007 | SVM classifier applied to test the accuracy of the extracted features and achieved about 93% when differentiating among Gleason grade 3 and stroma, 92.4% among epithelium and stroma, and 76.9% among Gleason 4 and 3. |
| [ | 2019 | The proposed model using hand-crafted features achieved an average accuracy of 94.6%. |
Summary of publications focused on Prostate histopathology image classification.
| Classifier | Reference | Year | AUC | Accuracy | Specificity | Sensitivity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KNN | [ | 2003 | - | 0.917 | - | - |
| [ | 2014 | - | 0.76 | - | - | |
| SVM | [ | 2007 | - | 0.876 | - | - |
| [ | 2013 | 0.75 | - | 0.83 | 0.81 | |
| [ | 2019 | 0.98 ± 0.011 for artefacts versus glands | 0.95 ± 0.02 for artefacts versus glands | 0.95 ± 0.03 for artefacts versus glands | 0.94 ± 0.01 for artefacts versus glands | |
| [ | 2019 | - | 0.655 (one-shot classification) | - | - | |
| Bag-of-Words | [ | 2016 | - | 0.901 | 0.905 | 0.79 |
| MLA | [ | 2018 | - | 0.883 | 0.94 | 0.876 |
| Boosting Cascade | [ | 2006 | - | 0.88 | - | - |
| SVM and Random Forest | [ | 2011 | 0.95 | - | 0.91 | 0.89 |
| Fuzzy Set Theory + Genetic Algorithm | [ | 2013 | 0.824 | - | 0.95714 | 0.7097 |
| Adaboost | [ | 2016 | - | 0.978 | - | - |
Summary of publications focused on applying deep learning methods for prostate histopathology images.
| Method | Reference | Year | Accuracy Result | Software | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CNN | [ | 2016 | AUC ranges from 0.88 to 0.99. | N/A | ||
| CNN built upon VGG19 | [ | 2019 | Average accuracy of classifying Artefacts vs. Glands is 95.4%, average accuracy of classifying Benign vs. Pathological is 88.3%, Average accuracy of Multi-class classification is 87.6% | Matlab 2018b + Python 3.5 with Keras library and Tensorflow as backend. | ||
| Pretrained CNN | [ | 2016 | The classification accuracy per image patch is 81%, while for the whole images, the classification accuracy is 89%. | N/A | ||
| Different CNN Architectures | ResNet-50 | [ | 2018 | They evaluated their results using test cohort and they observed that MobileNet attained the best performance on the validation set | Python 3 with Keras library and tensorflow as backend. Some analysis was done in R by the help of using survminer and survival packages. | |
| MobileNet | ||||||
| Inception-V3 | ||||||
| DenseNet-121 | ||||||
| VGG-16 | ||||||
| U-Net | [ | 2020 | The developed model achieved accuracy of 99% for biopsies containing tumor and a specificity of 82%. | Tensorflow and Keras | ||
| SSA-RideNN | [ | 2019 | The technique achieved maximal accuracy of 89.6% and sensitivity of 89.1%, and specificity of 85.9% | Matlab | ||
| SVM | [ | 2018 | They used Cohen’s kappa coefficient to evaluate the performance. The highest value attained is 0.52 by logistic regression, while 0.37 is attained by using CNN. | Matlab | ||
| Random forest | ||||||
| linear discriminant analysis | ||||||
| logistic regression | ||||||
| CNN | ||||||
| Different CNN Architectures | EfficientNet | [ | 2020 | UNet attained the best result of AUC about 0.98 | N/A | |
| DenseNet | ||||||
| U-Net | ||||||
| cGAN | [ | 2018 | The proposed technique achieved F1-score 85.7% for prostate dataset | Pytorch 0.4 | ||
| NB that utilizes CNN | [ | 2019 | Their proposed model achieves 81.3% precision, 91.4% in recall, and 85.4% in F1. | Python 2.7 with Keras library and Tensorflow | ||
| Path RCNN | [ | 2019 | Path RCNN attained accuracy of 99% and a mean of area under the curve of 0.99. | Python and Tensorflow backend | ||