Computer extracted gland features from H&E predicts prostate cancer recurrence comparably to a genomic companion diagnostic test: a large multi-site study.
Journal
NPJ precision oncology
ISSN: 2397-768X
Titre abrégé: NPJ Precis Oncol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101708166
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 May 2021
03 May 2021
Historique:
received:
20
08
2020
accepted:
05
04
2021
entrez:
4
5
2021
pubmed:
5
5
2021
medline:
5
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Existing tools for post-radical prostatectomy (RP) prostate cancer biochemical recurrence (BCR) prognosis rely on human pathologist-derived parameters such as tumor grade, with the resulting inter-reviewer variability. Genomic companion diagnostic tests such as Decipher tend to be tissue destructive, expensive, and not routinely available in most centers. We present a tissue non-destructive method for automated BCR prognosis, termed "Histotyping", that employs computational image analysis of morphologic patterns of prostate tissue from a single, routinely acquired hematoxylin and eosin slide. Patients from two institutions (n = 214) were used to train Histotyping for identifying high-risk patients based on six features of glandular morphology extracted from RP specimens. Histotyping was validated for post-RP BCR prognosis on a separate set of n = 675 patients from five institutions and compared against Decipher on n = 167 patients. Histotyping was prognostic of BCR in the validation set (p < 0.001, univariable hazard ratio [HR] = 2.83, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.03-3.93, concordance index [c-index] = 0.68, median years-to-BCR: 1.7). Histotyping was also prognostic in clinically stratified subsets, such as patients with Gleason grade group 3 (HR = 4.09) and negative surgical margins (HR = 3.26). Histotyping was prognostic independent of grade group, margin status, pathological stage, and preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) (multivariable p < 0.001, HR = 2.09, 95% CI: 1.40-3.10, n = 648). The combination of Histotyping, grade group, and preoperative PSA outperformed Decipher (c-index = 0.75 vs. 0.70, n = 167). These results suggest that a prognostic classifier for prostate cancer based on digital images could serve as an alternative or complement to molecular-based companion diagnostic tests.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33941830
doi: 10.1038/s41698-021-00174-3
pii: 10.1038/s41698-021-00174-3
pmc: PMC8093226
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
35Références
J Stat Softw. 2010;33(1):1-22
pubmed: 20808728
Lung Cancer. 2020 Apr;142:90-97
pubmed: 32120229
Nat Med. 2019 Jul;25(7):1054-1056
pubmed: 31160815
Med Image Anal. 2013 Dec;17(8):997-1009
pubmed: 23850744
NPJ Precis Oncol. 2021 May 3;5(1):35
pubmed: 33941830
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014 Aug 1;89(5):1038-1046
pubmed: 25035207
Lancet. 2016 Mar 19;387(10024):1163-77
pubmed: 26719232
Clin Adv Hematol Oncol. 2013 Jan;11(1):14-23
pubmed: 23416859
Eur Urol. 2014 Sep;66(3):550-60
pubmed: 24836057
Eur Urol. 2018 Feb;73(2):168-175
pubmed: 28400167
J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2019 Apr;6(2):024502
pubmed: 31259199
J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jan 20;37(3):213-221
pubmed: 30526194
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2015 Jan;34(1):284-97
pubmed: 25203987
Nat Med. 2018 Oct;24(10):1559-1567
pubmed: 30224757
Lancet Oncol. 2020 Feb;21(2):222-232
pubmed: 31926806
JAMA Oncol. 2019 May 1;5(5):633-634
pubmed: 30703187
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2007 Oct;26(10):1366-78
pubmed: 17948727
BMC Bioinformatics. 2012 Oct 30;13:282
pubmed: 23110677
Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv. 2013;16(Pt 2):403-10
pubmed: 24579166
Future Oncol. 2009 Dec;5(10):1555-84
pubmed: 20001796
Eur Urol. 2017 May;71(5):760-763
pubmed: 27939073
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Jun 20;35(18):1991-1998
pubmed: 28358655
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2019 Nov;16(11):703-715
pubmed: 31399699
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2020 Sep;23(3):419-428
pubmed: 31844180
Scand J Urol. 2016 Dec;50(6):420-424
pubmed: 27416104
N Engl J Med. 2016 Oct 13;375(15):1415-1424
pubmed: 27626136
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2013 Aug;60(8):2089-99
pubmed: 23392336
J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2016 Oct;3(4):047502
pubmed: 27803941
J Pathol. 2021 Mar;253(3):268-278
pubmed: 33197281
Lancet Oncol. 2020 Feb;21(2):233-241
pubmed: 31926805
Eur Urol. 2016 Jan;69(1):157-65
pubmed: 26058959
Comput Med Imaging Graph. 2015 Apr;41:3-13
pubmed: 25466771
Cell. 2018 Apr 5;173(2):400-416.e11
pubmed: 29625055
PLoS One. 2014 May 29;9(5):e97954
pubmed: 24875018
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Dec 07;(12):CD007234
pubmed: 22161411
J Urol. 2014 Aug;192(2):409-14
pubmed: 24508632
Am J Surg Pathol. 2014 Jan;38(1):128-37
pubmed: 24145650
Sci Rep. 2018 Oct 8;8(1):14918
pubmed: 30297720
Urology. 2013 Jul;82(1):53-8
pubmed: 23806388
J Urol. 1974 Jan;111(1):58-64
pubmed: 4813554
JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2019 Apr;3:1-7
pubmed: 30990737
NPJ Digit Med. 2019 Jun 7;2:48
pubmed: 31304394