Background: Worldwide, prostatic adenocarcinoma is the most common tumour type among men. Aim: The aim of the present investigation was to develop a computer program to identify normal prostate biopsies and distinguish them from biopsies showing premalignant alterations (LGPIN, HGPIN) and adenocarcinoma. Method: Prostate biopsies (n = 2094) taken from 191 consecutive men during 2016 were stained with triple immunehistochemisty (antibodies to AMACRA, p63 and CK 5). Digital images of the biopsies were obtained with a scanning microscope and used to develop an automatic computer program (CelldaTM), intended to identify the morphological alterations. Visual microscopic finding was used as a reference. Result: Of the 191 men, 121 (63.4%) were diagnosed as having prostate adenocarcinoma and 70 (36.6%) as having no malignancy on the basis of the visual microscopy. In comparison, computer analysis identified 134 (70.2%) men with malignant disease and 57 (29.8%) with non-malignant disease after exclusion of artifacts, which constituted 10.4% of areas (indicated as malignant disease). Discrepant results were recorded in 15 (7.9%) men, and in 14 of these cases, HGPIN and areas suggestive of early invasion were common. Thus, it was uncertain whether these cases should be regarded as malignant or not. The agreement between the visual examination and the computer analysis was 92.1% (kappa value 0.823, sensitivity 99.2 and specificity was 0.80). Conclusion: It seems that computer analysis could serve as an adjunct to simplify and shorten the diagnostic procedure, first of all by ensuring that normal prostate biopsies are sorted out from those sent for visual microscopic evaluation.
Humphrey, P.A., Moch, H., Cubilla, A.L., Ulbright, T.M. and Reuter, V.E. (2016) The 2016 WHO Classification of Tumours of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs-Part B: Prostate and Bladder Tumours. European Urology, 70, 106-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.02.028
Department of Health and Welfare (2016) Cancer Incidence in Sweden.
Ozkan, T.A., Eruyar, A.T., Cebeci, O.O., Memik, O., Ozcan, L. and Kuskonmaz, I. (2016) Interobserver Variability in Gleason Histological Grading of Prostate Cancer. Scandinavian Journal of Urology, 50, 420-424. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681805.2016.1206619
Melia, J., Moseley, R., Ball, R.Y., Griffiths, D.F., Grigor, K., Harnden, P., Jarmulowicz, M., McWilliam, L.J., Montironi, R., Waller, M., Moss, S. and Parkinson, M.C. (2006) A UK-Based Investigation of Inter- and Intra-Observer Reproducibility of Gleason Grading of Prostatic Biopsies. Histopathology, 48, 644-654. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2559.2006.02393.x
Egevad, L. (2012) The Pathologist’s Role: To Diagnose Prostatic Cancer and Determine Prognosis. Lakartidningen, 109, 403-406.
Bratt, O. (2018) A Paradigm Shift for Prostate Cancer Diagnostics. Lakartidningen, 115.
Madabhushi, A. and Lee, G. (2016) Image Analysis and Machine Learning in Digital Pathology: Challenges and Opportunities. Medical Image Analysis, 33, 170-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2016.06.037
Mills, A.M., Gradecki, S.E., Horton, B.J., Blackwell, R., Moskaluk, C.A., Mandell, J.W., Mills, S.E. and Cathro, H.P. (2018) Diagnostic Efficiency in Digital Pathology: A Comparison of Optical versus Digital Assessment in 510 Surgical Pathology Cases. The American Journal of Surgical Pathology, 42, 53-59. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000930
Ström, P., Kartasalo, K., Olsson, H., Solorzano, L., Delahunt, B., Berney, D.M., Bostwick, D.G., Evans, A.J., Grignon, D.J., Humphrey, P.A., Iczkowski, K.A., Kench, J.G., Kristiansen, G., van der Kwast, T.H., Leite, K.R.M., McKenney, J.K., Oxley, J., Pan, C.C., Samaratunga, H., Srigley, J.R., Takahashi, H., Tsuzuki, T., Varma, M., Zhou, M., Lindberg, J., Lindskog, C., Ruusuvuori, P., Wählby, C., Grönberg, H., Rantalainen, M., Egevad, L. and Eklund, M. (2020) Artificial Intelligence for Diagnosis and Grading of Prostate Cancer in Biopsies: A Population-Based, Diagnostic Study. The Lancet Oncology, 21, 222-232. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30738-7
Robboy, S.J., Weintraub, S., Horvath, A.E., Jensen, B.W., Alexander, C.B., Fody, E.P., Crawford, J.M., Clark, J.R., Cantor-Weinberg, J., Joshi, M.G., Cohen, M.B., Prystowsky, M.B., Bean, S.M., Gupta, S., Powell, S.Z., Speights Jr., V.O., Gross, D.J. and Black-Schaffer, W.S. (2013) Pathologist Workforce in the United States: I. Development of a Predictive Model to Examine Factors Influencing Supply. Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, 137, 1723-1732. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2013-0200-OA
P504S
Microscopy
Scanning
Bejnordi, B.E., Veta, M., Van Diest, P.J., van Ginneken, B., Karssemeijer, N., Litjens, G., Jeroen and van der Laak, J.A.W.M. (2017) Diagnostic Assessment of Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women with Breast Cancer. JAMA, 318, 2199-2210. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.14585
Esteva, A., Kuprel, B., Novoa, R.A., Ko, J., Swetter, S., Blau, H.M. and Thrun, S. (2017) Dermatologist-Level Classification of Skin Cancer with Deep Neural Networks. Nature, 542, 115-118. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21056
Silver, D., Huang, A., Maddison, C.J., Guez, A., Sifre, L., van den Driessche, G., Schrittwieser, J., Antonoglou, I., Panneershelvam, V., Lanctot, M., Dieleman, S., Grewe, D., Nham, J., Kalchbrenner, N., Sutskever, I., Lillicrap, T., Leach, M., Kavukcuoglu, K., Graepel, T. and Hassabis, D. (2016) Mastering the Game of Go with Deep Neural Networks and Tree Search. Nature, 529, 484-489. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16961
Gummeson, A., Arvidsson, I., Ohlsson, M., Overgaars, N.C., Krzyzanowska, A., Heyden, A., Biartell, A. and Åström, K. (2017) Automatic Gleason Grading of H&E Stained Microscopic Prostate Images Using Deep Convolutional Neural Networks. Proceedings of SPIE, Volume 10140, Orlando. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2253620
Källén, H., Molin, J., Heyden, A., Lundström, C. and Åström, K. (2016) Towards Grading Gleason Score Using Generically Trained Deep Convolutional Neural Networks. 2016 IEEE 13th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging, Prague, 13-16 April 2016, 1163. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISBI.2016.7493473
Jiménez del Toro, O., Atzori, M., Otálora, S., Anderssn, M., Eurén, K., Hedlund, M., Rönnquist, P. and Muller, H. (2017) Convolutional Neural Networks for an Automatic Classification of Prostate Tissue Slides with High-Grade Gleason Score. Proceedings of SPIE, Volume 10140. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2255710
Arvaniti, E., Fricker, K.S., Moret, M., Rupp, N., Hermanns, T., Fankhauser, C., Wey, N., Wild, P.J., Rüschoff, J.H. and Claassen, M. (2018) Automated Gleason Grading of Prostate Cancer Tissue Microarrays via Deep Learning. Scientific Reports, 8, Article No. 12054. https://doi.org/10.1101/280024
Litjens, G., Sánchez, C.I., Timofeeva, N., Hermsen, M., Nagtegaal, I., Kovacs, I., Hulsbergen-van de Kaa, C., Bult, P., van Ginneken, B. and van der Laak, J. (2016) Deep Learning as a Tool for Increased Accuracy and Efficiency of Histopathological Diagnosis. Scientific Reports, 6, Article No. 26286. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep26286
Campanella, G., Hanna, M.G., Geneslaw, L., Miraflor, A., Silva, V.W.K., Busam, K.J., Brogi, E., Reuter, V.E., Klimstra, D.S. and Fuchs, T.J. (2019) Clinical-Grade Computational Pathology Using Weakly Supervised Deep Learning on Whole Slide Images. Nature Medicine, 25, 1301-1309. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-019-0508-1
Zha, S., Ferdinandusse, S., Denis, S., Wanders, R.J., Ewing, C.M., Luo, J., De Marzo, A.M. and Isaacs, W.B. (2003) Alpha-Methylacyl-CoA Racemase as an Androgen-Independent Growth Modifier in Prostate Cancer. Cancer Research, 63, 7365-7376.
Stewart, J., Fleshner, N., Cole, H. and Sweet, J. (2007) Comparison of Annexin II, p63 and Alpha-Methylacyl-CoA Racemase Immunoreactivity in Prostatic Tissue: A Tissue Microarray Study. Journal of Clinical Pathology, 60, 773-780. https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp.2006.040808
Epstein, J.I., Egevad, L., Humphrey, P.A. and Montironi, R. (2014) Best Practices Recommendations in the Application of Immunohistochemistry in the Prostate: Report from the International Society of Urologic Pathology Consensus Conference. The American Journal of Surgical Pathology, 38, e6-e19. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000238
Yu, T., Zhu, S.X., Zheng, S. and Chen, S.P. (2007) Detection of AMACR (P504S), P63 and 34betaE12 Cocktail in the Early Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer. National Journal of Andrology, 13, 222-225.
Epstein, J.I. and Herawi, M. (2006) Prostate Needle Biopsies Containing Prostatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia or Atypical Foci Suspicious for Carcinoma: Implications for Patient Care. Journal of Urology, 175, 820-834. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00337-X
Patel, P., Nayak, J.G., Biljetina, Z., Donnelly, B. and Trpkov, K. (2015) Prostate Cancer after Initial High-Grade Prostatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia and Benign Prostate Biopsy. The Canadian Journal of Urology, 22, 8056-8062.