Comparison of whole slide image–based deep learning algorithms and genomic classifiers for assessing the risk of prostate cancer metastasis in surgically treated patients.

Lia DePaula Oliveira,Eric Erak,Adrianna Mendes,Aditya Vartak,Nilanjan Chattopadhyay,Saikiran Bonthu,Uttara Joshi,Chaith Kondragunta,Nitin Singhal,Angelo M De Marzo,Tamara L. Lotan
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.4_suppl.344
IF: 45.3
2024-02-01
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Abstract:344 Background: Genomic classifiers improve post-radical prostatectomy (RP) risk stratification compared to conventional clinical-pathologic parameters, but are tissue-destructive and expensive. In contrast, artificial intelligence algorithms utilizing diagnostic hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained slides for risk stratification conserve tissue and could be made widely available at point-of-care. We compared the predictive output of a deep learning-based algorithm applied to H&E-stained whole slide images (WSI) of prostate tumors to commercial genomic classifiers such as Decipher and Prolaris in three diverse RP cohorts with follow-up for metastasis. Methods: We used subsets of three previously published Johns Hopkins RP cohorts with available genomic classifier data. The Natural History Cohort (n=249, Decipher test, PMID: 26058959) and Case-Cohort (n=210, Prolaris CCP test, PMID: 36006048) both utilized a case-cohort design on the outcome of metastasis and consisted of predominantly self-identified White patients, while the Race Cohort (n=93, Decipher test, PMID: 31969336) included only self-identified Black patients with clinical follow-up. For each cohort, a single representative H&E-stained slide from the dominant tumor nodule at RP was scanned. The DL algorithm utilized tumor detection in H&E-stained WSI followed by a classification model to predict metastasis, with or without clinical parameters (age, race, pre-operative PSA, pathologic T- and N-stage, and margin status). The algorithm was trained (n=197) and validated (n=52) on patients from Natural History Cohort and tested on the Race Cohort and Case-Cohort. Harrell’s C-indices based on unadjusted Cox models for time to metastasis were evaluated. Results: The C-index for the WSI-based deep learning algorithm on the Natural History Cohort validation subset was 0.766 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.730-0.802) compared to 0.732 (95% CI:0.698-0.766) for the Decipher score. The C-index for WSI-based deep learning algorithm in the Race Cohort was 0.804 (95% CI: 0.790-0.818) compared to 0.724 (95% CI: 0.721-0.726) for the Decipher score. The C-index for the WSI-based deep learning algorithm in the Case-Cohort was 0.840 (95% CI: 0.829-0.851) compared to 0.801 (95% CI: 0.800-0.802) for the Prolaris CCP score. The C-index values for the deep learning algorithm utilizing WSI plus clinical-pathologic parameters were 0.836 (95% CI: 0.796-0.876), 0.882 (95% CI: 0.869-0.894), and 0.890 (95% CI: 0.878-0.901) for the Natural History Cohort, Race-Cohort, and Case-Cohort, respectively. Conclusions: DL algorithms utilizing WSI with or without clinical-pathologic parameters outperform currently employed genomic classifiers for the prediction of metastasis. Validation in additional multi-institutional and racially diverse cohorts is underway.
oncology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?