Literature DB >> 36268105

Impact of scanner variability on lymph node segmentation in computational pathology.

Amjad Khan1, Andrew Janowczyk2,3, Felix Müller1, Annika Blank4, Huu Giao Nguyen1, Christian Abbet5, Linda Studer1,6,7, Alessandro Lugli1, Heather Dawson1, Jean-Philippe Thiran5,8, Inti Zlobec1.   

Abstract

Computer-aided diagnostics in histopathology are based on the digitization of glass slides. However, heterogeneity between the images generated by different slide scanners can unfavorably affect the performance of computational algorithms. Here, we evaluate the impact of scanner variability on lymph node segmentation due to its clinical importance in colorectal cancer diagnosis. 100 slides containing 276 lymph nodes were digitized using 4 different slide scanners, and 50 of the lymph nodes containing metastatic cancer cells. These 400 scans were subsequently annotated by 2 experienced pathologists to precisely label lymph node boundary. Three different segmentation methods were then applied and compared: Hematoxylin-channel-based thresholding (HCT), Hematoxylin-based active contours (HAC), and a convolution neural network (U-Net). Evaluation of U-Net trained from both a single scanner and an ensemble of all scanners was completed. Mosaic images based on representative tiles from a scanner were used as a reference image to normalize the new data from different test scanners to evaluate the performance of a pre-trained model. Fine-tuning was carried out by using weights of a model trained on one scanner to initialize model weights for other scanners. To evaluate the domain generalization, domain adversarial learning and stain mix-up augmentation were also implemented. Results show that fine-tuning and domain adversarial learning decreased the impact of scanner variability and greatly improved segmentation across scanners. Overall, U-Net with stain mix-up (Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) = 0.87), domain adversarial learning (MCC = 0.86), and HAC (MCC = 0.87) were shown to outperform HCT (MCC = 0.81) for segmentation of lymph nodes when compared against the ground truth. The findings of this study should be considered for future algorithms applied in diagnostic routines.
© 2022 The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Colorectal cancer; Computational pathology; Domain generalization; Fine tuning; Lymph node; Lymph node segmentation; Scanner variability; Whole slide image

Year:  2022        PMID: 36268105      PMCID: PMC9577043          DOI: 10.1016/j.jpi.2022.100127

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pathol Inform


  23 in total

1.  Comparison of the predicted and observed secondary structure of T4 phage lysozyme.

Authors:  B W Matthews
Journal:  Biochim Biophys Acta       Date:  1975-10-20

2.  Active contours without edges.

Authors:  T F Chan; L A Vese
Journal:  IEEE Trans Image Process       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 10.856

3.  A morphological approach to curvature-based evolution of curves and surfaces.

Authors:  Pablo Márquez-Neila; Luis Baumela; Luis Alvarez
Journal:  IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 6.226

4.  Histological Grading of Rectal Cancer: (Section of Pathology).

Authors:  C Dukes
Journal:  Proc R Soc Med       Date:  1937-02

5.  Structure-Preserving Color Normalization and Sparse Stain Separation for Histological Images.

Authors:  Abhishek Vahadane; Tingying Peng; Amit Sethi; Shadi Albarqouni; Lichao Wang; Maximilian Baust; Katja Steiger; Anna Melissa Schlitter; Irene Esposito; Nassir Navab
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2016-04-27       Impact factor: 10.048

6.  NuClick: A deep learning framework for interactive segmentation of microscopic images.

Authors:  Navid Alemi Koohbanani; Mostafa Jahanifar; Neda Zamani Tajadin; Nasir Rajpoot
Journal:  Med Image Anal       Date:  2020-07-10       Impact factor: 8.545

Review 7.  Image analysis and machine learning in digital pathology: Challenges and opportunities.

Authors:  Anant Madabhushi; George Lee
Journal:  Med Image Anal       Date:  2016-07-04       Impact factor: 8.545

8.  The TNM classification of malignant tumours-towards common understanding and reasonable expectations.

Authors:  Brian O'Sullivan; James Brierley; David Byrd; Fred Bosman; Sean Kehoe; Carol Kossary; Marion Piñeros; Elizabeth Van Eycken; Hannah K Weir; Mary Gospodarowicz
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 41.316

9.  Distribution of metastatic lymph nodes in colorectal cancer by the modified clearing method.

Authors:  E Morikawa; M Yasutomi; K Shindou; T Matsuda; N Mori; J Hida; R Kubo; M Kitaoka; M Nakamura; K Fujimoto
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  1994-03       Impact factor: 4.585

10.  Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (JSCCR) Guidelines 2014 for treatment of colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Toshiaki Watanabe; Michio Itabashi; Yasuhiro Shimada; Shinji Tanaka; Yoshinori Ito; Yoichi Ajioka; Tetsuya Hamaguchi; Ichinosuke Hyodo; Masahiro Igarashi; Hideyuki Ishida; Soichiro Ishihara; Megumi Ishiguro; Yukihide Kanemitsu; Norihiro Kokudo; Kei Muro; Atsushi Ochiai; Masahiko Oguchi; Yasuo Ohkura; Yutaka Saito; Yoshiharu Sakai; Hideki Ueno; Takayuki Yoshino; Narikazu Boku; Takahiro Fujimori; Nobuo Koinuma; Takayuki Morita; Genichi Nishimura; Yuh Sakata; Keiichi Takahashi; Osamu Tsuruta; Toshiharu Yamaguchi; Masahiro Yoshida; Naohiko Yamaguchi; Kenjiro Kotake; Kenichi Sugihara
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-03-18       Impact factor: 3.402

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.