Technology Insight: Will systems pathology replace the pathologist?

Nature Clinical Practice Urology

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 39-45

  Saidi, Olivier ^a   Cordon Cardo, Carlos ^b   Costa, Jose ^c  

^a Aureon Biosciences   (United States)

^b MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^c YALE CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Pathology automation; Predictive medicine; Prostate cancer; Systems pathology

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ALGORITHM; ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CANCER GRADING; CANCER RECURRENCE; CANCER SURVIVAL; CLINICAL FEATURE; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; COMPUTER SYSTEM; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; GLEASON SCORE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE DISPLAY; LABORATORY TEST; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATHOLOGIST; PATHOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; QUANTITATIVE DIAGNOSIS; RECURRENCE RISK; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

HUMANS; INFORMATION SYSTEMS; MALE; PATHOLOGY; PHYSICIANS; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; TECHNOLOGY, MEDICAL;

EID: 33846049942     PISSN: 17434270     EISSN: 17434289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/ncpuro0669     Document Type: Review

References (20)

1. Albertsen PC et al. (1998) Competing risk analysis of men aged 55 to 74 years at diagnosis managed conservatively for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 280: 975-980
2. Bianco FJ Jr et al. (2003) Ten-year survival after radical prostatectomy: Specimen Gleason score is the predictor in organ-confined prostate cancer. Clin Prostate Cancer 1: 242-247
3. Alan RW et al. (2003) Correlation of minute (0.5 mm or less) focus of prostate adenocarcinoma on needle biopsy with radical prostatectomy specimen: Role of prostate specific antigen density. J Urol 170: 370-372
4. Quinn DI et al. (2005) Molecular markers of prostate cancer outcome. European J Cancer 41: 858-887
5. Diamond J et al. (2004) The use of morphological characteristics and texture analysis in the identification of tissue composition in prostatic neoplasia. Hum Pathol 35: 1121-1131
6. Roula MA et al. (2002) A multispectral computer vision system for automatic grading of prostatic neoplasia. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging, July 7-10 2002, Washington, DC, 193-196
7. Stotzka R et al. (1995) A hybrid neural and statistical classifier system for histopathologic grading of prostate lesions. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 17: 204-218
8. Smith Y et al. (1999) Similarity measurement method for the classification of architecturally differentiated images. Comp Biomed Res 32: 1-12
9. Wetzel AW et al. (1999) Evaluation of prostate tumor grades by content-based image retrieval. In 27th AIPR Workshop: Advances in Computer-Assisted Recognition, 14 October 1998, Washington, DC, 3584: 244-252 (Ed. Merickso RJ)
10. Jafari-Khouzani K and Soltanian-Zadeh H (2003) Multiwavelet grading of pathological images of prostate. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 50: 697-704
11. Vapnik VN (1995) The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory. New York: Springer-Verlag
12. Su Al et al. (2001) Molecular classification of human carcinomas by use of gene expression signatures. Cancer Res 61: 7388-7393
13. Yeang CH et al. (2001) Molecular classification of multiple tumor types. Bioinformatics 17 (Suppl 1): S316-S322
14. Cristianini N and Shawe-Taylor J. (2000) An Introduction to Support Vector Machines and Other Kernel-Based Learning Methods. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
15. Ye QH et al. (2003) Predicting hepatitis B virus-positive metastatic hepatocellular carcinomas using gene expression profiling and supervised machine learning. Nat Med 9: 416-423
16. Brown MPS et al. (2000) Knowledgebased analysis of microarray gene expression data using support vector machines. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97: 262-267
17. Biganzoli E et al. (1998) Feed forward neural networks for the analysis of censored survival data: A partial logistic regression approach. Stat Med 17: 1169-1186
18. Ohno-Machado L and Musen MA. (1997) Modular neural networks for medical prognosis: Quantifying the benefits of combining neural networks for survival prediction. Connect Sci 9: 71-86
19. Kattan MW et al. (1998) Experiments to determine whether recursive partitioning or an artifi-cial neural network overcomes theoretical limitation of cox proportional hazards regression. Comput Biomed Res 31: 363-373
20. Brown SF et al. (1997) On the use of artificial neural networks for the analysis of survival data. IEEE Trans Neural Netw 8: 1071-1077