TY - JOUR
T1 - Deep learning supported mitoses counting on whole slide images
T2 - A pilot study for validating breast cancer grading in the clinical workflow
AU - van Bergeijk, Stijn A
AU - Stathonikos, Nikolas
AU - Ter Hoeve, Natalie D
AU - Lafarge, Maxime W
AU - Nguyen, Tri Q
AU - van Diest, Paul J
AU - Veta, Mitko
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The Authors
PY - 2023/1
Y1 - 2023/1
N2 - INTRODUCTION: Breast cancer (BC) prognosis is largely influenced by histopathological grade, assessed according to the Nottingham modification of Bloom-Richardson (BR). Mitotic count (MC) is a component of histopathological grading but is prone to subjectivity. This study investigated whether mitoses counting in BC using digital whole slide images (WSI) compares better to light microscopy (LM) when assisted by artificial intelligence (AI), and to which extent differences in digital MC (AI assisted or not) result in BR grade variations.METHODS: Fifty BC patients with paired core biopsies and resections were randomly selected. Component scores for BR grade were extracted from pathology reports. MC was assessed using LM, WSI, and AI. Different modalities (LM-MC, WSI-MC, and AI-MC) were analyzed for correlation with scatterplots and linear regression, and for agreement in final BR with Cohen's κ.RESULTS: MC modalities strongly correlated in both biopsies and resections: LM-MC and WSI-MC (R
2 0.85 and 0.83, respectively), LM-MC and AI-MC (R
2 0.85 and 0.95), and WSI-MC and AI-MC (R
2 0.77 and 0.83). Agreement in BR between modalities was high in both biopsies and resections: LM-MC and WSI-MC (κ 0.93 and 0.83, respectively), LM-MC and AI-MC (κ 0.89 and 0.83), and WSI-MC and AI-MC (κ 0.96 and 0.73).
CONCLUSION: This first validation study shows that WSI-MC may compare better to LM-MC when using AI. Agreement between BR grade based on the different mitoses counting modalities was high. These results suggest that mitoses counting on WSI can well be done, and validate the presented AI algorithm for pathologist supervised use in daily practice. Further research is required to advance our knowledge of AI-MC, but it appears at least non-inferior to LM-MC.
AB - INTRODUCTION: Breast cancer (BC) prognosis is largely influenced by histopathological grade, assessed according to the Nottingham modification of Bloom-Richardson (BR). Mitotic count (MC) is a component of histopathological grading but is prone to subjectivity. This study investigated whether mitoses counting in BC using digital whole slide images (WSI) compares better to light microscopy (LM) when assisted by artificial intelligence (AI), and to which extent differences in digital MC (AI assisted or not) result in BR grade variations.METHODS: Fifty BC patients with paired core biopsies and resections were randomly selected. Component scores for BR grade were extracted from pathology reports. MC was assessed using LM, WSI, and AI. Different modalities (LM-MC, WSI-MC, and AI-MC) were analyzed for correlation with scatterplots and linear regression, and for agreement in final BR with Cohen's κ.RESULTS: MC modalities strongly correlated in both biopsies and resections: LM-MC and WSI-MC (R
2 0.85 and 0.83, respectively), LM-MC and AI-MC (R
2 0.85 and 0.95), and WSI-MC and AI-MC (R
2 0.77 and 0.83). Agreement in BR between modalities was high in both biopsies and resections: LM-MC and WSI-MC (κ 0.93 and 0.83, respectively), LM-MC and AI-MC (κ 0.89 and 0.83), and WSI-MC and AI-MC (κ 0.96 and 0.73).
CONCLUSION: This first validation study shows that WSI-MC may compare better to LM-MC when using AI. Agreement between BR grade based on the different mitoses counting modalities was high. These results suggest that mitoses counting on WSI can well be done, and validate the presented AI algorithm for pathologist supervised use in daily practice. Further research is required to advance our knowledge of AI-MC, but it appears at least non-inferior to LM-MC.
KW - Artificial intelligence
KW - Bloom & Richardson grade
KW - Breast cancer
KW - Digital pathology
KW - Light microscopy
KW - Mitotic index
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85160257472&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jpi.2023.100316
DO - 10.1016/j.jpi.2023.100316
M3 - Article
C2 - 37273455
SN - 2229-5089
VL - 14
JO - Journal of Pathology Informatics
JF - Journal of Pathology Informatics
M1 - 100316
ER -