An automated computational image analysis pipeline for histological grading of cardiac allograft rejection.
Allograft rejection
Digital pathology
Heart transplant
Machine learning
Image analysis
Journal
European heart journal
ISSN: 1522-9645
Titre abrégé: Eur Heart J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8006263
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
21 06 2021
21 06 2021
Historique:
received:
30
11
2020
revised:
26
01
2021
accepted:
14
04
2021
pubmed:
14
5
2021
medline:
1
7
2021
entrez:
13
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Allograft rejection is a serious concern in heart transplant medicine. Though endomyocardial biopsy with histological grading is the diagnostic standard for rejection, poor inter-pathologist agreement creates significant clinical uncertainty. The aim of this investigation is to demonstrate that cellular rejection grades generated via computational histological analysis are on-par with those provided by expert pathologists. The study cohort consisted of 2472 endomyocardial biopsy slides originating from three major US transplant centres. The 'Computer-Assisted Cardiac Histologic Evaluation (CACHE)-Grader' pipeline was trained using an interpretable, biologically inspired, 'hand-crafted' feature extraction approach. From a menu of 154 quantitative histological features relating the density and orientation of lymphocytes, myocytes, and stroma, a model was developed to reproduce the 4-grade clinical standard for cellular rejection diagnosis. CACHE-grader interpretations were compared with independent pathologists and the 'grade of record', testing for non-inferiority (δ = 6%). Study pathologists achieved a 60.7% agreement [95% confidence interval (CI): 55.2-66.0%] with the grade of record, and pair-wise agreement among all human graders was 61.5% (95% CI: 57.0-65.8%). The CACHE-Grader met the threshold for non-inferiority, achieving a 65.9% agreement (95% CI: 63.4-68.3%) with the grade of record and a 62.6% agreement (95% CI: 60.3-64.8%) with all human graders. The CACHE-Grader demonstrated nearly identical performance in internal and external validation sets (66.1% vs. 65.8%), resilience to inter-centre variations in tissue processing/digitization, and superior sensitivity for high-grade rejection (74.4% vs. 39.5%, P < 0.001). These results show that the CACHE-grader pipeline, derived using intuitive morphological features, can provide expert-quality rejection grading, performing within the range of inter-grader variability seen among human pathologists.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33982079
pii: 6274944
doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehab241
pmc: PMC8216729
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2356-2369Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R01 CA216579
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R01 CA202752
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : TL1 TR001880
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R01 CA220581
Pays : United States
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : R01 HL151277
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.
Références
Transplantation. 2012 Dec 15;94(11):1172-7
pubmed: 23222738
Am J Transplant. 2020 Dec;20(12):3308-3318
pubmed: 32476272
Lab Invest. 2018 Nov;98(11):1438-1448
pubmed: 29959421
J R Soc Interface. 2018 Apr;15(141):
pubmed: 29618526
Nature. 2017 Feb 2;542(7639):115-118
pubmed: 28117445
Artif Intell Med. 2015 Jun;64(2):131-45
pubmed: 25976208
Anal Cell Pathol (Amst). 2012;35(2):75-8
pubmed: 21971321
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2019 Nov;16(11):703-715
pubmed: 31399699
N Engl J Med. 2003 Aug 28;349(9):847-58
pubmed: 12944570
J Heart Lung Transplant. 2011 Nov;30(11):1214-20
pubmed: 21816625
Sci Rep. 2017 Oct 19;7(1):13543
pubmed: 29051570
J Heart Lung Transplant. 2005 Nov;24(11):1710-20
pubmed: 16297770
IEEE EMBS Int Conf Biomed Health Inform. 2018 Mar;2018:
pubmed: 32551442
Lancet Oncol. 2020 Feb;21(2):222-232
pubmed: 31926806
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007 Aug;131(8):1169-91
pubmed: 17683180
JAMA. 2016 Dec 13;316(22):2402-2410
pubmed: 27898976
Circulation. 2015 May 5;131(18):1608-39
pubmed: 25838326
J Heart Lung Transplant. 2010 Aug;29(8):914-56
pubmed: 20643330
Clin Cancer Res. 2019 Mar 1;25(5):1526-1534
pubmed: 30201760
J Heart Lung Transplant. 2003 Jan;22(1):3-15
pubmed: 12531408
Psychol Rep. 1966 Aug;19(1):3-11
pubmed: 5942109
J Heart Transplant. 1990 Nov-Dec;9(6):587-93
pubmed: 2277293
Am J Transplant. 2006 Jun;6(6):1377-86
pubmed: 16686761
Sci Rep. 2017 Apr 18;7:46450
pubmed: 28418027
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2017 Sep;141(9):1267-1275
pubmed: 28557614
Lancet Oncol. 2020 Feb;21(2):233-241
pubmed: 31926805
PLoS One. 2018 Apr 3;13(4):e0192726
pubmed: 29614076
J Heart Lung Transplant. 2005 Jul;24(7 Suppl):S219-26
pubmed: 15993777
Am J Pathol. 2020 Jul;190(7):1491-1504
pubmed: 32277893
J R Soc Interface. 2015 Feb 6;12(103):
pubmed: 25505134
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2011;2011:6434-7
pubmed: 22255811
Sci Rep. 2018 Oct 8;8(1):14918
pubmed: 30297720
J Pathol Inform. 2016 Jul 26;7:29
pubmed: 27563488
Curr Opin Cardiol. 2006 Mar;21(2):127-31
pubmed: 16470149
Anal Quant Cytol Histol. 2001 Aug;23(4):291-9
pubmed: 11531144
JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2019 Apr;3:1-7
pubmed: 30990737
Cell Rep. 2018 Apr 3;23(1):181-193.e7
pubmed: 29617659