Artificial intelligence for diagnosis and Gleason grading of prostate cancer: the PANDA challenge.
Journal
Nature medicine
ISSN: 1546-170X
Titre abrégé: Nat Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9502015
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2022
01 2022
Historique:
received:
05
03
2021
accepted:
08
11
2021
pubmed:
15
1
2022
medline:
22
2
2022
entrez:
14
1
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Artificial intelligence (AI) has shown promise for diagnosing prostate cancer in biopsies. However, results have been limited to individual studies, lacking validation in multinational settings. Competitions have been shown to be accelerators for medical imaging innovations, but their impact is hindered by lack of reproducibility and independent validation. With this in mind, we organized the PANDA challenge-the largest histopathology competition to date, joined by 1,290 developers-to catalyze development of reproducible AI algorithms for Gleason grading using 10,616 digitized prostate biopsies. We validated that a diverse set of submitted algorithms reached pathologist-level performance on independent cross-continental cohorts, fully blinded to the algorithm developers. On United States and European external validation sets, the algorithms achieved agreements of 0.862 (quadratically weighted κ, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.840-0.884) and 0.868 (95% CI, 0.835-0.900) with expert uropathologists. Successful generalization across different patient populations, laboratories and reference standards, achieved by a variety of algorithmic approaches, warrants evaluating AI-based Gleason grading in prospective clinical trials.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35027755
doi: 10.1038/s41591-021-01620-2
pii: 10.1038/s41591-021-01620-2
pmc: PMC8799467
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
154-163Investigateurs
Américo Brilhante
(A)
Aslı Çakır
(A)
Xavier Farré
(X)
Katerina Geronatsiou
(K)
Vincent Molinié
(V)
Guilherme Pereira
(G)
Paromita Roy
(P)
Günter Saile
(G)
Paulo G O Salles
(PGO)
Ewout Schaafsma
(E)
Joëlle Tschui
(J)
Jorge Billoch-Lima
(J)
Emíio M Pereira
(EM)
Ming Zhou
(M)
Shujun He
(S)
Sejun Song
(S)
Qing Sun
(Q)
Hiroshi Yoshihara
(H)
Taiki Yamaguchi
(T)
Kosaku Ono
(K)
Tao Shen
(T)
Jianyi Ji
(J)
Arnaud Roussel
(A)
Kairong Zhou
(K)
Tianrui Chai
(T)
Nina Weng
(N)
Dmitry Grechka
(D)
Maxim V Shugaev
(MV)
Raphael Kiminya
(R)
Vassili Kovalev
(V)
Dmitry Voynov
(D)
Valery Malyshev
(V)
Elizabeth Lapo
(E)
Manuel Campos
(M)
Noriaki Ota
(N)
Shinsuke Yamaoka
(S)
Yusuke Fujimoto
(Y)
Kentaro Yoshioka
(K)
Joni Juvonen
(J)
Mikko Tukiainen
(M)
Antti Karlsson
(A)
Rui Guo
(R)
Chia-Lun Hsieh
(CL)
Igor Zubarev
(I)
Habib S T Bukhar
(HST)
Wenyuan Li
(W)
Jiayun Li
(J)
William Speier
(W)
Corey Arnold
(C)
Kyungdoc Kim
(K)
Byeonguk Bae
(B)
Yeong Won Kim
(YW)
Hong-Seok Lee
(HS)
Jeonghyuk Park
(J)
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Epstein, J. I. An update of the gleason grading system. J. Urol. 183, 433–440 (2010).
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.10.046
Mohler, J. L. et al. Prostate cancer, version 2.2019, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J. Natl Compr. Canc. Netw. 17, 479–505 (2019).
doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2019.0023
van Leenders, G. J. L. H. et al. The 2019 international society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 44, e87 (2020).
doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000001497
Epstein, J. I. et al. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: Definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 40, 244–252 (2016).
doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000530
Pierorazio, P. M., Walsh, P. C., Partin, A. W. & Epstein, J. I. Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int. 111, 753–760 (2013).
doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11611.x
Epstein, J. I. et al. A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the gleason score. Eur. Urol. 69, 428–435 (2016).
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.046
Allsbrook, W. C. Jr et al. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: urologic pathologists. Hum. Pathol. 32, 74–80 (2001).
doi: 10.1053/hupa.2001.21134
Melia, J. et al. A UK-based investigation of inter- and intra-observer reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic biopsies. Histopathology 48, 644–654 (2006).
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2006.02393.x
Ozkan, T. A. et al. Interobserver variability in Gleason histological grading of prostate cancer. Scand. J. Urol. 50, 420–424 (2016).
doi: 10.1080/21681805.2016.1206619
Egevad, L. et al. Standardization of Gleason grading among 337 European pathologists. Histopathology 62, 247–256 (2013).
doi: 10.1111/his.12008
Goldenberg, S. L., Nir, G. & Salcudean, S. E. A new era: artificial intelligence and machine learning in prostate cancer. Nat. Rev. Urol. 16, 391–403 (2019).
doi: 10.1038/s41585-019-0193-3
Nir, G. et al. Comparison of artificial intelligence techniques to evaluate performance of a classifier for automatic grading of prostate cancer from digitized histopathologic images. JAMA Netw. Open 2, e190442 (2019).
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.0442
Han, W. et al. Histologic tissue components provide major cues for machine learning-based prostate cancer detection and grading on prostatectomy specimens. Sci. Rep. 10, 9911 (2020).
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-66849-2
Nagpal, K. et al. Development and validation of a deep learning algorithm for improving Gleason scoring of prostate cancer. NPJ Digit. Med. 2, 48 (2019).
doi: 10.1038/s41746-019-0112-2
Nagpal, K. et al. Development and validation of a deep learning algorithm for gleason grading of prostate cancer from biopsy specimens. JAMA Oncol. 6, 1372–1380 (2020).
doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.2485
Bulten, W. et al. Automated deep-learning system for Gleason grading of prostate cancer using biopsies: a diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol. 21, 233–241 (2020).
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30739-9
Ström, P. et al. Artificial intelligence for diagnosis and grading of prostate cancer in biopsies: a population-based, diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol. 21, 222–232 (2020).
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30738-7
Kott, O. et al. Development of a deep learning algorithm for the histopathologic diagnosis and gleason grading of prostate cancer biopsies: a pilot study. Eur. Urol. Focus 7, 347–351 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2019.11.003
Steiner, D. F. et al. Evaluation of the use of combined artificial intelligence and pathologist assessment to review and grade prostate biopsies. JAMA Netw. Open 3, e2023267 (2020).
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.23267
Bulten, W. et al. Artificial intelligence assistance significantly improves Gleason grading of prostate biopsies by pathologists. Mod. Pathol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41379-020-0640-y (2020).
Challen, R. et al. Artificial intelligence, bias and clinical safety. BMJ Qual. Saf. 28, 231–237 (2019).
doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008370
Nagendran, M. et al. Artificial intelligence versus clinicians: systematic review of design, reporting standards, and claims of deep learning studies. BMJ 368, m689 (2020).
doi: 10.1136/bmj.m689
AI diagnostics need attention. Nature 555, 285–285 (2018).
Yasaka, K. & Abe, O. Deep learning and artificial intelligence in radiology: current applications and future directions. PLoS Med. 15, e1002707 (2018).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002707
Ehteshami Bejnordi, B. et al. Diagnostic assessment of deep learning algorithms for detection of lymph node metastases in women with breast cancer. JAMA 318, 2199–2210 (2017).
doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.14585
Bandi, P. et al. From detection of individual metastases to classification of lymph node status at the patient level: the CAMELYON17 challenge. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 38, 550–560 (2019).
doi: 10.1109/TMI.2018.2867350
Caicedo, J. C. et al. Nucleus segmentation across imaging experiments: the 2018 Data Science Bowl. Nat. Methods 16, 1247–1253 (2019).
doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0612-7
Maier-Hein, L. et al. Why rankings of biomedical image analysis competitions should be interpreted with care. Nat. Commun. 9, 5217 (2018).
doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-07619-7
Bulten, W. et al. The PANDA challenge: Prostate cANcer graDe Assessment using the Gleason grading system. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3715938 (2020).
LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y. & Hinton, G. Deep learning. Nature 521, 436–444 (2015).
doi: 10.1038/nature14539
Litjens, G. et al. A survey on deep learning in medical image analysis. Med. Image Anal. 42, 60–88 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.media.2017.07.005
van der Laak, J., Ciompi, F. & Litjens, G. No pixel-level annotations needed. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 3, 855–856 (2019).
doi: 10.1038/s41551-019-0472-6
Hartman, D. J., Van Der Laak, J. A. W. M., Gurcan, M. N. & Pantanowitz, L. Value of public challenges for the development of pathology deep learning algorithms. J. Pathol. Inform. 11, 7 (2020).
doi: 10.4103/jpi.jpi_64_19
Kelly, C. J., Karthikesalingam, A., Suleyman, M., Corrado, G. & King, D. Key challenges for delivering clinical impact with artificial intelligence. BMC Med. 17, 195 (2019).
doi: 10.1186/s12916-019-1426-2
Rajkomar, A., Hardt, M., Howell, M. D., Corrado, G. & Chin, M. H. Ensuring fairness in machine learning to advance health equity. Ann. Intern. Med. 169, 866–872 (2018).
doi: 10.7326/M18-1990
Gianfrancesco, M. A., Tamang, S., Yazdany, J. & Schmajuk, G. Potential biases in machine learning algorithms using electronic health record data. JAMA Intern. Med. 178, 1544–1547 (2018).
doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.3763
Merkel, D. Docker: lightweight Linux containers for consistent development and deployment. Linux J. 2014, 2 (2014).
Kurtzer, G. M., Sochat, V. & Bauer, M. W. Singularity: scientific containers for mobility of compute. PLoS ONE 12, e0177459 (2017).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177459
Bulten, W. et al. PANDA challenge analysis code. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5592578 (2020).