scholarly journals Automated Gleason Grading and Gleason Pattern Region Segmentation Based on Deep Learning for Pathological Images of Prostate Cancer

IEEE Access ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 117714-117725
Author(s):  
Yuchun Li ◽  
Mengxing Huang ◽  
Yu Zhang ◽  
Jing Chen ◽  
Haixia Xu ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Renata Zelic ◽  
Francesca Giunchi ◽  
Luca Lianas ◽  
Cecilia Mascia ◽  
Gianluigi Zanetti ◽  
...  

AbstractVirtual microscopy (VM) holds promise to reduce subjectivity as well as intra- and inter-observer variability for the histopathological evaluation of prostate cancer. We evaluated (i) the repeatability (intra-observer agreement) and reproducibility (inter-observer agreement) of the 2014 Gleason grading system and other selected features using standard light microscopy (LM) and an internally developed VM system, and (ii) the interchangeability of LM and VM. Two uro-pathologists reviewed 413 cores from 60 Swedish men diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer 1998–2014. Reviewer 1 performed two reviews using both LM and VM. Reviewer 2 performed one review using both methods. The intra- and inter-observer agreement within and between LM and VM were assessed using Cohen’s kappa and Bland and Altman’s limits of agreement. We found good repeatability and reproducibility for both LM and VM, as well as interchangeability between LM and VM, for primary and secondary Gleason pattern, Gleason Grade Groups, poorly formed glands, cribriform pattern and comedonecrosis but not for the percentage of Gleason pattern 4. Our findings confirm the non-inferiority of VM compared to LM. The repeatability and reproducibility of percentage of Gleason pattern 4 was poor regardless of method used warranting further investigation and improvement before it is used in clinical practice.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Derek Van Booven ◽  
Victor Sandoval ◽  
Oleksander Kryvenko ◽  
Madhumita Parmar ◽  
Andres Briseño ◽  
...  

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (21) ◽  
pp. 3459-3464 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer R. Stark ◽  
Sven Perner ◽  
Meir J. Stampfer ◽  
Jennifer A. Sinnott ◽  
Stephen Finn ◽  
...  

Purpose Gleason grading is an important predictor of prostate cancer (PCa) outcomes. Studies using surrogate PCa end points suggest outcomes for Gleason score (GS) 7 cancers vary according to the predominance of pattern 4. These studies have influenced clinical practice, but it is unclear if rates of PCa mortality differ for 3 + 4 and 4 + 3 tumors. Using PCa mortality as the primary end point, we compared outcomes in Gleason 3 + 4 and 4 + 3 cancers, and the predictive ability of GS from a standardized review versus original scoring. Patients and Methods Three study pathologists conducted a blinded standardized review of 693 prostatectomy and 119 biopsy specimens to assign primary and secondary Gleason patterns. Tumor specimens were from PCa patients diagnosed between 1984 and 2004 from the Physicians' Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-Up Study. Lethal PCa (n = 53) was defined as development of bony metastases or PCa death. Hazard ratios (HR) were estimated according to original GS and standardized GS. We compared the discrimination of standardized and original grading with C-statistics from models of 10-year survival. Results For prostatectomy specimens, 4 + 3 cancers were associated with a three-fold increase in lethal PCa compared with 3 + 4 cancers (95% CI, 1.1 to 8.6). The discrimination of models of standardized scores from prostatectomy (C-statistic, 0.86) and biopsy (C-statistic, 0.85) were improved compared to models of original scores (prostatectomy C-statistic, 0.82; biopsy C-statistic, 0.72). Conclusion Ignoring the predominance of Gleason pattern 4 in GS 7 cancers may conceal important prognostic information. A standardized review of GS can improve prediction of PCa survival.


JAMA Oncology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (9) ◽  
pp. 1372 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kunal Nagpal ◽  
Davis Foote ◽  
Fraser Tan ◽  
Yun Liu ◽  
Po-Hsuan Cameron Chen ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eirini Arvaniti ◽  
Kim S. Fricker ◽  
Michael Moret ◽  
Niels J. Rupp ◽  
Thomas Hermanns ◽  
...  

AbstractThe Gleason grading system remains the most powerful prognostic predictor for patients with prostate cancer since the 1960’s. Its application requires highly-trained pathologists, is tedious and yet suffers from limited inter-pathologist reproducibility, especially for the intermediate Gleason score 7. Automated annotation procedures constitute a viable solution to remedy these limitations.In this study, we present a deep learning approach for automated Gleason grading of prostate cancer tissue microarrays with Hematoxylin and Eosin (H&E) staining. Our system was trained using detailed Gleason annotations on a discovery cohort of 641 patients and was then evaluated on an independent test cohort of 245 patients annotated by two pathologists. On the test cohort, the inter-annotator agreements between the model and each pathologist, quantified via Cohen’s quadratic kappa statistic, were 0.75 and 0.71 respectively, comparable with the inter-pathologist agreement (kappa=0.71). Furthermore, the model’s Gleason score assignments achieved pathology expert-level stratification of patients into prognostically distinct groups, on the basis of disease-specific survival data available for the test cohort.Overall, our study shows promising results regarding the applicability of deep learning-based solutions towards more objective and reproducible prostate cancer grading, especially for cases with heterogeneous Gleason patterns.


2020 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Yun Niu ◽  
Can-Cheng Liu ◽  
Bing-Lin Zhang ◽  
Zhi-Gang Song ◽  
Huang Chen ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document