High throughput assessment of biomarkers in tissue microarrays using artificial intelligence: PTEN loss as a proof-of-principle in multi-center prostate cancer cohorts.
Journal
Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc
ISSN: 1530-0285
Titre abrégé: Mod Pathol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8806605
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2021
02 2021
Historique:
received:
30
12
2019
accepted:
21
08
2020
revised:
21
08
2020
pubmed:
5
9
2020
medline:
17
7
2022
entrez:
5
9
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) loss is associated with adverse outcomes in prostate cancer and has clinical potential as a prognostic biomarker. The objective of this work was to develop an artificial intelligence (AI) system for automated detection and localization of PTEN loss on immunohistochemically (IHC) stained sections. PTEN loss was assessed using IHC in two prostate tissue microarrays (TMA) (internal cohort, n = 272 and external cohort, n = 129 patients). TMA cores were visually scored for PTEN loss by pathologists and, if present, spatially annotated. Cores from each patient within the internal TMA cohort were split into 90% cross-validation (N = 2048) and 10% hold-out testing (N = 224) sets. ResNet-101 architecture was used to train core-based classification using a multi-resolution ensemble approach (×5, ×10, and ×20). For spatial annotations, single resolution pixel-based classification was trained from patches extracted at ×20 resolution, interpolated to ×40 resolution, and applied in a sliding-window fashion. A final AI-based prediction model was created from combining multi-resolution and pixel-based models. Performance was evaluated in 428 cores of external cohort. From both cohorts, a total of 2700 cores were studied, with a frequency of PTEN loss of 14.5% in internal (180/1239) and external 13.5% (43/319) cancer cores. The final AI-based prediction of PTEN status demonstrated 98.1% accuracy (95.0% sensitivity, 98.4% specificity; median dice score = 0.811) in internal cohort cross-validation set and 99.1% accuracy (100% sensitivity, 99.0% specificity; median dice score = 0.804) in internal cohort test set. Overall core-based classification in the external cohort was significantly improved in the external cohort (area under the curve = 0.964, 90.6% sensitivity, 95.7% specificity) when further trained (fine-tuned) using 15% of cohort data (19/124 patients). These results demonstrate a robust and fully automated method for detection and localization of PTEN loss in prostate cancer tissue samples. AI-based algorithms have potential to streamline sample assessment in research and clinical laboratories.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32884130
doi: 10.1038/s41379-020-00674-w
pii: S0893-3952(22)00688-3
pmc: PMC9152638
mid: NIHMS1801793
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers, Tumor
0
PTEN Phosphohydrolase
EC 3.1.3.67
PTEN protein, human
EC 3.1.3.67
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
478-489Subventions
Organisme : CCR NIH HHS
ID : HHSN261200800001C
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : HHSN261200800001E
Pays : United States
Organisme : Intramural NIH HHS
ID : ZIH BC012032
Pays : United States
Organisme : Movember Foundation (Movember)
ID : T2014-01
Pays : International
Références
Am J Pathol. 2012 Aug;181(2):401-12
pubmed: 22705054
Mod Pathol. 2016 Apr;29(4):318-29
pubmed: 26916072
JAMA. 2017 Dec 12;318(22):2199-2210
pubmed: 29234806
BMC Med. 2015 May 09;13:109
pubmed: 25956920
Diagn Pathol. 2012 Jun 20;7:42
pubmed: 22515559
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015 Nov 27;108(2):
pubmed: 26615022
NPJ Precis Oncol. 2017 Jun 19;1(1):22
pubmed: 29872706
J Clin Oncol. 2020 May 1;38(13):1474-1494
pubmed: 31829902
Nat Med. 2019 Sep;25(9):1453-1457
pubmed: 31406351
Ann Oncol. 2015 Feb;26(2):259-71
pubmed: 25214542
Comput Biol Med. 2019 Jul;110:164-174
pubmed: 31163391
Nat Rev Urol. 2018 Apr;15(4):222-234
pubmed: 29460925
JAMA. 2017 Dec 12;318(22):2211-2223
pubmed: 29234807
J Urol. 2010 Jul;184(1):126-30
pubmed: 20478583
Mod Pathol. 2015 Jan;28(1):128-137
pubmed: 24993522
Nature. 2017 Feb 2;542(7639):115-118
pubmed: 28117445
Sci Rep. 2017 Apr 05;7:45938
pubmed: 28378829
IEEE Trans Image Process. 2018 May;27(5):2189-2200
pubmed: 29432100
Sci Rep. 2018 Nov 26;8(1):17343
pubmed: 30478349
Eur Urol Focus. 2018 Dec;4(6):867-873
pubmed: 28753869
Exp Cell Res. 2001 Mar 10;264(1):29-41
pubmed: 11237521
Mod Pathol. 2016 Aug;29(8):904-14
pubmed: 27174589
PLoS Med. 2018 Nov 6;15(11):e1002683
pubmed: 30399157
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018 Aug 1;25(8):945-954
pubmed: 29617797
J Urol. 2018 Mar;199(3):683-690
pubmed: 29203269
Clin Cancer Res. 2011 Oct 15;17(20):6563-73
pubmed: 21878536
JAMA. 2015 Mar 17;313(11):1122-32
pubmed: 25781441
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2019 Mar;22(1):176-181
pubmed: 30279579
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020 Nov 1;112(11):1098-1104
pubmed: 32129857
Oncologist. 2015 May;20(5):474-82
pubmed: 25908555
J Urol. 2011 Aug;186(2):465-9
pubmed: 21679996
Prostate. 2015 Aug 1;75(11):1206-15
pubmed: 25939393
Semin Cancer Biol. 2019 Dec;59:66-79
pubmed: 30738865
Clin Chem. 2015 Jun;61(6):809-20
pubmed: 25882892
Biomark Insights. 2017 Jun 19;12:1177271917715236
pubmed: 28659713
Am J Surg Pathol. 2018 Dec;42(12):1636-1646
pubmed: 30312179
Med Image Anal. 2017 Jul;39:194-205
pubmed: 28521242
NPJ Digit Med. 2019 Jun 7;2:48
pubmed: 31304394
Cell Rep. 2018 Apr 3;23(1):181-193.e7
pubmed: 29617659