Stable and discriminating features are predictive of cancer presence and Gleason grade in radical prostatectomy specimens: a multi-site study

Scientific Reports

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 2018, Pages

  Leo, Patrick ^a   Elliott, Robin ^b   Shih, Natalie N C ^c   Gupta, Sanjay ^b   Feldman, Michael ^c   Madabhushi, Anant ^a  

^a Case Western Reserve University   (United States)

^b CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AREA UNDER THE CURVE; CANCER GRADING; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; HUMAN; MALE; PATHOLOGY; PROSTATE TUMOR; PROSTATECTOMY;

AREA UNDER CURVE; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MALE; NEOPLASM GRADING; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS;

EID: 85054588187     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20452322     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-33026-5     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Ghaznavi, F., Evans, A., Madabhushi, A. & Feldman, M. Digital imaging in pathology: Whole-slide imaging and beyond. Annual Review of Pathology: Mechanisms of Disease 8, 331–359 (2013)
2. Bhargava, R. & Madabhushi, A. Emerging themes in image informatics and molecular analysis for digital pathology. Annual review of biomedical engineering 18, 387–412 (2016)
3. Madabhushi, A., Agner, S., Basavanhally, A., Doyle, S. & Lee, G. Computer-aided prognosis: predicting patient and disease outcome via quantitative fusion of multi-scale, multi-modal data. Computerized medical imaging and graphics 35, 506–514 (2011)
4. Madabhushi, A. et al. Integrated diagnostics: a conceptual framework with examples. Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine 48, 989–998 (2010)
5. Lee, G. et al. Supervised multi-view canonical correlation analysis (sMVCCA): Integrating histologic and proteomic features for predicting recurrent prostate cancer. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 34, 284–297 (2015)
6. Lyon, H. O. et al. Standardization of reagents and methods used in cytological and histological practice with emphasis on dyes, stains and chromogenic reagents. The Histochemical Journal 26, 533–544 (1994)
7. Xu, J., Janowczyk, A., Chandran, S. & Madabhushi, A. A high-throughput active contour scheme for segmentation of histopathological imagery. Medical Image Analysis 15, 851–862 (2011)
8. Schulte, E. Standardization of biological dyes and stains: pitfalls and possibilities. Histochemistry and Cell Biology 95, 319–328 (1991)
9. Janowczyk, A., Basavanhally, A. & Madabhushi, A. Stain normalization using sparse autoencoders (stanosa): Application to digital pathology. Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics 57, 50–61 (2017)
10. Khan, A. M., Rajpoot, N., Treanor, D. & Magee, D. A nonlinear mapping approach to stain normalization in digital histopathology images using image-specific color deconvolution. Biomedical Engineering, IEEE Transactions on 61, 1729–1738 (2014)
11. Macenko, M. et al. A method for normalizing histology slides for quantitative analysis. In Biomedical Imaging: From Nano to Macro, 2009. ISBI ’09. IEEE International Symposium on, 1107–1110 (2009)
12. Kalousis, A., Prados, J. & Hilario, M. Stability of feature selection algorithms: a study on high-dimensional spaces. Knowledge and information systems 12, 95–116 (2007)
13. Abeel, T., Helleputte, T., Van de Peer, Y., Dupont, P. & Saeys, Y. Robust biomarker identification for cancer diagnosis with ensemble feature selection methods. Bioinformatics 26, 392–398 (2009)
14. Parmar, C., Grossmann, P., Bussink, J., Lambin, P. & Aerts, H. J. Machine learning methods for quantitative radiomic biomarkers. Scientific reports 5, 13087 (2015)
15. He, Z. & Yu, W. Stable feature selection for biomarker discovery. Computational biology and chemistry 34, 215–225 (2010)
16. Platiša, L., Van Brantegem, L., Kumcu, A., Ducatelle, R. & Philips, W. Influence of study design on digital pathology image quality evaluation: the need to define a clinical task. Journal of Medical Imaging 4, 021108–021108 (2017)
17. Shrestha, P. et al. A quantitative approach to evaluate image quality of whole slide imaging scanners. Journal of pathology informatics 7 (2016)
18. Shrestha, P. & Hulsken, B. Color accuracy and reproducibility in whole slide imaging scanners. Journal of Medical Imaging 1, 027501–027501 (2014)
19. Leo, P. et al. Evaluating stability of histomorphometric features across scanner and staining variations: prostate cancer diagnosis from whole slide images. Journal of Medical Imaging 3, 047502 (2016)
20. Lee, G. et al. Co-occurring gland angularity in localized subgraphs: predicting biochemical recurrence in intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients. PloS one 9, e97954 (2014)
21. Nguyen, K., Sarkar, A. & Jain, A. K. Structure and context in prostatic gland segmentation and classification. In Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2012, 115–123 (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012)
22. Naik, S., Doyle, S., Feldman, M., Tomaszewski, J. & Madabhushi, A. Gland segmentation and computerized gleason grading of prostate histology by integrating low-, high-level and domain specific information. In MIAAB workshop, 1–8 (2007)
23. Alexe, G. et al. Towards improved cancer diagnosis and prognosis using analysis of gene expression data and computer aided imaging. Experimental Biology and Medicine 234, 860–879 (2009)
24. Basavanhally, A. N. et al. Computerized image-based detection and grading of lymphocytic infiltration in her2+ breast cancer histopathology. IEEE Transactions on biomedical engineering 57, 642–653 (2010)
25. Haralick, R. M., Shanmugam, K. & Dinstein, I. H. Textural features for image classification. Systems, Man and Cybernetics, IEEE Transactions on 610–621 (1973)
26. Doyle, S., Feldman, M. D., Shih, N., Tomaszewski, J. E. & Madabhushi, A. Cascaded discrimination of normal, abnormal, and confounder classes in histopathology: Gleason grading of prostate cancer. BMC bioinformatics 13, 282 (2012)
27. Basavanhally, A. et al. Multi-field-of-view framework for distinguishing tumor grade in er+ breast cancer from entire histopathology slides. IEEE transactions on biomedical engineering 60, 2089–2099 (2013)
28. Ali, S., Veltri, R., Epstein, J. A., Christudass, C. & Madabhushi, A. Cell cluster graph for prediction of biochemical recurrence in prostate cancer patients from tissue microarrays. In Medical Imaging 2013: Digital Pathology, vol. 8676, 86760H (International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2013)
29. Kohavi, R. & John, G. H. Wrappers for feature subset selection. Artificial intelligence 97, 273–324 (1997)
30. Wilcoxon, F., Katti, S. & Wilcox, R. A. Critical values and probability levels for the wilcoxon rank sum test and the wilcoxon signed rank test. Selected tables in mathematical statistics 1, 171–259 (1970)
31. Peng, H., Long, F. & Ding, C. Feature selection based on mutual information criteria of max-dependency, max-relevance, and min-redundancy. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 27, 1226–1238 (2005)
32. Theodoridis, S. & Kourtroumbas, K. Pattern Recognition, chap. 5, 173–174, 2 edn. (Academic Press, 2003)
33. Diamond, J., Anderson, N. H., Bartels, P. H., Montironi, R. & Hamilton, P. W. The use of morphological characteristics and texture analysis in the identification of tissue composition in prostatic neoplasia. Human pathology 35, 1121–1131 (2004)
34. Tabesh, A. et al. Multifeature prostate cancer diagnosis and gleason grading of histological images. IEEE transactions on medical imaging 26, 1366–1378 (2007)
35. Yu, K.-H. et al. Predicting non-small cell lung cancer prognosis by fully automated microscopic pathology image features. Nature communications 7 (2016)
36. Sparks, R. & Madabhushi, A. Explicit shape descriptors: Novel morphologic features for histopathology classification. Medical Image Analysis 17, 997–1009 (2013)
37. Sparks, R. & Madabhushi, A. Statistical shape model for manifold regularization: Gleason grading of prostate histology. Computer Vision and Image Understanding: CVIU 117, 1138–1146 (2013)
38. Nguyen, T. H. et al. Automatic gleason grading of prostate cancer using quantitative phase imaging and machine learning. Journal of Biomedical Optics 22, 036015 (2017)
39. Sengupta, S. et al. Trends in distribution and prognostic significance of gleason grades on radical retropubic prostatectomy specimens between 1989 and 2001. Cancer 106, 2630–2635 (2006)
40. Burchardt, M. et al. Interobserver reproducibility of gleason grading: evaluation using prostate cancer tissue microarrays. Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology 134, 1071–1078 (2008)
41. Samaratunga, H. et al. International society of urological pathology (isup) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working Group 1: specimen handling. Modern Pathology 24, 6 (2011)