Impact of scanner variability on lymph node segmentation in computational pathology.

Colorectal cancer Computational pathology Domain generalization Fine tuning Lymph node Lymph node segmentation Scanner variability Whole slide image

Journal

Journal of pathology informatics
ISSN: 2229-5089
Titre abrégé: J Pathol Inform
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101528849

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2022
Historique:
received: 10 01 2022
revised: 05 07 2022
accepted: 12 07 2022
entrez: 21 10 2022
pubmed: 22 10 2022
medline: 22 10 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Computer-aided diagnostics in histopathology are based on the digitization of glass slides. However, heterogeneity between the images generated by different slide scanners can unfavorably affect the performance of computational algorithms. Here, we evaluate the impact of scanner variability on lymph node segmentation due to its clinical importance in colorectal cancer diagnosis. 100 slides containing 276 lymph nodes were digitized using 4 different slide scanners, and 50 of the lymph nodes containing metastatic cancer cells. These 400 scans were subsequently annotated by 2 experienced pathologists to precisely label lymph node boundary. Three different segmentation methods were then applied and compared: Hematoxylin-channel-based thresholding (HCT), Hematoxylin-based active contours (HAC), and a convolution neural network (U-Net). Evaluation of U-Net trained from both a single scanner and an ensemble of all scanners was completed. Mosaic images based on representative tiles from a scanner were used as a reference image to normalize the new data from different test scanners to evaluate the performance of a pre-trained model. Fine-tuning was carried out by using weights of a model trained on one scanner to initialize model weights for other scanners. To evaluate the domain generalization, domain adversarial learning and stain mix-up augmentation were also implemented. Results show that fine-tuning and domain adversarial learning decreased the impact of scanner variability and greatly improved segmentation across scanners. Overall, U-Net with stain mix-up (Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) = 0.87), domain adversarial learning (MCC = 0.86), and HAC (MCC = 0.87) were shown to outperform HCT (MCC = 0.81) for segmentation of lymph nodes when compared against the ground truth. The findings of this study should be considered for future algorithms applied in diagnostic routines.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36268105
doi: 10.1016/j.jpi.2022.100127
pii: S2153-3539(22)00721-0
pmc: PMC9577043
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

100127

Informations de copyright

© 2022 The Author(s).

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

None.

Références

Int J Clin Oncol. 2015 Apr;20(2):207-39
pubmed: 25782566
Dis Colon Rectum. 1994 Mar;37(3):219-23
pubmed: 8137667
Med Image Anal. 2016 Oct;33:170-175
pubmed: 27423409
Biochim Biophys Acta. 1975 Oct 20;405(2):442-51
pubmed: 1180967
Proc R Soc Med. 1937 Feb;30(4):371-6
pubmed: 19990989
IEEE Trans Image Process. 2001;10(2):266-77
pubmed: 18249617
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2016 Aug;35(8):1962-71
pubmed: 27164577
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Jul;18(7):849-851
pubmed: 28677562
IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 2014 Jan;36(1):2-17
pubmed: 24231862
Med Image Anal. 2020 Oct;65:101771
pubmed: 32769053
Gigascience. 2018 Jun 1;7(6):
pubmed: 29860392
Med Image Anal. 2020 Oct;65:101789
pubmed: 32739769
Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2019 Mar;170:107-120
pubmed: 30712599
Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2019 Nov 01;7:300
pubmed: 31737619
Comput Med Imaging Graph. 2017 Apr;57:50-61
pubmed: 27373749
Med Image Anal. 2019 Dec;58:101544
pubmed: 31466046
Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2019 Aug 23;7:198
pubmed: 31508414
BMC Genomics. 2020 Jan 2;21(1):6
pubmed: 31898477
Nat Med. 2019 Aug;25(8):1301-1309
pubmed: 31308507
Sci Rep. 2020 Sep 1;10(1):14398
pubmed: 32873856
IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 2015 Nov;37(11):2153-63
pubmed: 26440258
Anal Quant Cytol Histol. 2001 Aug;23(4):291-9
pubmed: 11531144
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2016 Feb;35(2):404-15
pubmed: 26353368

Auteurs

Amjad Khan (A)

Institute of Pathology, University of Bern, Murtenstrasse 31, CH-3008 Bern, Switzerland.

Andrew Janowczyk (A)

Case Western Reserve University, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA.
Department of Oncology, Lausanne University Hospital and Lausanne University, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Felix Müller (F)

Institute of Pathology, University of Bern, Murtenstrasse 31, CH-3008 Bern, Switzerland.

Annika Blank (A)

Institute of Pathology, City Hospital Triemli, Zürich, Switzerland.

Huu Giao Nguyen (HG)

Institute of Pathology, University of Bern, Murtenstrasse 31, CH-3008 Bern, Switzerland.

Christian Abbet (C)

Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne (EPFL), Signal Processing Laboratory (LTS5), Lausanne, Switzerland.

Linda Studer (L)

Institute of Pathology, University of Bern, Murtenstrasse 31, CH-3008 Bern, Switzerland.
Institute of Complex Systems (iCoSyS), University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland, Delémont, Switzerland.
Document, Image and Video Analysis (DIVA) Research Group, Department of Informatics, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland.

Alessandro Lugli (A)

Institute of Pathology, University of Bern, Murtenstrasse 31, CH-3008 Bern, Switzerland.

Heather Dawson (H)

Institute of Pathology, University of Bern, Murtenstrasse 31, CH-3008 Bern, Switzerland.

Jean-Philippe Thiran (JP)

Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne (EPFL), Signal Processing Laboratory (LTS5), Lausanne, Switzerland.
Department of Radiology, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne University, and Centre d'Imagerie Biomédicale (CIBM), Lausanne, Switzerland.

Inti Zlobec (I)

Institute of Pathology, University of Bern, Murtenstrasse 31, CH-3008 Bern, Switzerland.

Classifications MeSH