| Literature DB >> 35494021 |
Hong Liu1, Wen-Dong Xu1,2, Zi-Hao Shang1,2, Xiang-Dong Wang1, Hai-Yan Zhou3, Ke-Wen Ma3, Huan Zhou3, Jia-Lin Qi3, Jia-Rui Jiang3, Li-Lan Tan3, Hui-Min Zeng3, Hui-Juan Cai3, Kuan-Song Wang3,4, Yue-Liang Qian1.
Abstract
Molecular subtypes of breast cancer are important references to personalized clinical treatment. For cost and labor savings, only one of the patient's paraffin blocks is usually selected for subsequent immunohistochemistry (IHC) to obtain molecular subtypes. Inevitable block sampling error is risky due to the tumor heterogeneity and could result in a delay in treatment. Molecular subtype prediction from conventional H&E pathological whole slide images (WSI) using the AI method is useful and critical to assist pathologists to pre-screen proper paraffin block for IHC. It is a challenging task since only WSI-level labels of molecular subtypes from IHC can be obtained without detailed local region information. Gigapixel WSIs are divided into a huge amount of patches to be computationally feasible for deep learning, while with coarse slide-level labels, patch-based methods may suffer from abundant noise patches, such as folds, overstained regions, or non-tumor tissues. A weakly supervised learning framework based on discriminative patch selection and multi-instance learning was proposed for breast cancer molecular subtype prediction from H&E WSIs. Firstly, co-teaching strategy using two networks was adopted to learn molecular subtype representations and filter out some noise patches. Then, a balanced sampling strategy was used to handle the imbalance in subtypes in the dataset. In addition, a noise patch filtering algorithm that used local outlier factor based on cluster centers was proposed to further select discriminative patches. Finally, a loss function integrating local patch with global slide constraint information was used to fine-tune MIL framework on obtained discriminative patches and further improve the prediction performance of molecular subtyping. The experimental results confirmed the effectiveness of the proposed AI method and our models outperformed even senior pathologists, which has the potential to assist pathologists to pre-screen paraffin blocks for IHC in clinic.Entities:
Keywords: H&E; breast cancer; molecular subtype; pathological image; weakly supervised learning
Year: 2022 PMID: 35494021 PMCID: PMC9046851 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.858453
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 5.738
Distribution of each molecular subtyping in the BCMT dataset.
| Set | Luminal A | Luminal B | Her-2 | Basal-like | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Train | 254 | 298 | 255 | 196 | 1,003 |
| Val | 59 | 84 | 61 | 47 | 251 |
| Total | 313 | 382 | 316 | 243 | 1,254 |
Figure 1Our framework DPMIL for molecular subtype prediction. The pipeline of out framework contains 5 stages. (1) WSIs are divided into patches. (2) ResNet trained with Co-teaching generate feature for each patch. (3) LOF is adopted to select discriminative patches based on features. (4) Discriminative patches are used to finetune ResNet with WSI and patch loss. (5) Finetuned model predict final molecular subtypes for patches and WSIs.
Figure 2Local outlier factor example.
Figure 3Two-stage training of MIL model. Finetuning of MOL model contains two stages. (1) Model is trained on discriminative patches using patch-level loss. (2) Model is trained for slide-level subtyping using slice-level loss.
Figure 4Statistics patches of different molecular subtypes at each resolution.
Figure 5Results of 4-class molecular subtype classification with patch resampling at different resolutions.
Figure 6Results of 4-class molecular subtype classification with co-teaching and LOF at different resolutions.
Figure 7Results of 4-class molecular subtype classification with MIL finetuning at different resolutions.
Figure 8Results of 2-class molecular subtype classification and 4-class weighted fusion at 10× resolution.
Comparison of molecular subtyping results among doctors and our best models.
| Predictor | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | F1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean of D1s | 28.8% | 28.4% | 28.9% | 0.260 |
| Range of D1s | 23.2%–32.3% | 23.2%–33.6% | 25.2%–32.4% | 0.202–0.286 |
| D2 | 38.4% | 40.2% | 39.0% | 0.394 |
| D3 | 42.4% | 42.5% | 43.9% | 0.429 |
| 10×-(0.5) (Ours) | 57.8% | 58.1% | 71.8% | 0.653 |
| 10×-Weight fusion (Ours) | 64.3% | 65.1% | 72.2% | 0.685 |