Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30718811›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

Persistent Homology for the Quantitative Evaluation of Architectural Features in Prostate Cancer Histology.

Peter Lawson, Andrew B Sholl, J Quincy Brown, Brittany Terese Fasy, Carola Wenk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Topo-CNN: Retinal Image Analysis with Topological Deep Learning.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. A Faithful Discretization of Verbose Directional Transforms.Discrete & computational geometry · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Advancing Precision Medicine: Algebraic Topology and Differential Geometry in Radiology and Computational Pathology.Laboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology · 2024
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Peter LawsonDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, 70118, USA.
Andrew B ShollDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana, 70118, USA.
J Quincy BrownDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, 70118, USA. jqbrown@tulane.edu.
Brittany Terese FasySchool of Computing and Department of Mathematical Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, 59717, USA. brittany.fasy@montana.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-1908-0154
Carola WenkDepartment of Computer Science, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, 70118, USA. cwenk@tulane.edu.

Funding

Improving biospecimen quality by verifying adequacy at the point-of-acquisition with ex vivo structured illumination microscopyR33CA196457 · NCI · TULANE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA · PI BROWN, JONATHAN QUINCY · 2015 to 2017
$946k
NCI NIH HHS R33 CA196457
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current system for evaluating prostate cancer architecture is the Gleason grading system which divides the morphology of cancer into five distinct architectural patterns, labeled 1 to 5 in increasing levels of cancer aggressiveness, and generates a score by summing the labels of the two most dominant patterns. The Gleason score is currently the most powerful prognostic predictor of patient outcomes; however, it suffers from problems in reproducibility and consistency due to the high intra-observer and inter-observer variability amongst pathologists. In addition, the Gleason system lacks the granularity to address potentially prognostic architectural features beyond Gleason patterns. We evaluate prostate cancer for architectural subtypes using techniques from topological data analysis applied to prostate cancer glandular architecture. In this work we demonstrate the use of persistent homology to capture architectural features independently of Gleason patterns. Specifically, using persistent homology, we compute topological representations of purely graded prostate cancer histopathology images of Gleason patterns 3,4 and 5, and show that persistent homology is capable of clustering prostate cancer histology into architectural groups through a ranked persistence vector. Our results indicate the ability of persistent homology to cluster prostate cancer histopathology images into unique groups with dominant architectural patterns consistent with the continuum of Gleason patterns. In addition, of particular interest, is the sensitivity of persistent homology to identify specific sub-architectural groups within single Gleason patterns, suggesting that persistent homology could represent a robust quantification method for prostate cancer architecture with higher granularity than the existing semi-quantitative measures. The capability of these topological representations to segregate prostate cancer by architecture makes them an ideal candidate for use as inputs to future machine learning approaches with the intent of augmenting traditional approaches with topological features for improved diagnosis and prognosis.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerHumansMaleNeoplasm GradingObserver VariationPrognosisProstatic NeoplasmsRadiographic Image Enhancement

Identifiers

PMID30718811
PMCPMC6361896

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.