Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31222166›Full record

ArticleLaboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology2019

Deep learning assisted mitotic counting for breast cancer.

Maschenka C A Balkenhol, David Tellez, Willem Vreuls, Pieter C Clahsen, Hans Pinckaers, Francesco Ciompi, Peter Bult, Jeroen A W M van der Laak

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Laboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

8 authors.

Maschenka C A BalkenholDepartment of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands. maschenka.balkenhol@radboudumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9457-618X
David TellezDepartment of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Willem VreulsDepartment of Pathology, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Pieter C ClahsenDepartment of Pathology, Haaglanden Medical Center, 's-Gravenhage, Netherlands.
Hans PinckaersDepartment of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Francesco CiompiDepartment of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Peter BultDepartment of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Jeroen A W M van der LaakDepartment of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7982-0754

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As part of routine histological grading, for every invasive breast cancer the mitotic count is assessed by counting mitoses in the (visually selected) region with the highest proliferative activity. Because this procedure is prone to subjectivity, the present study compares visual mitotic counting with deep learning based automated mitotic counting and fully automated hotspot selection. Two cohorts were used in this study. Cohort A comprised 90 prospectively included tumors which were selected based on the mitotic frequency scores given during routine glass slide diagnostics. This pathologist additionally assessed the mitotic count in these tumors in whole slide images (WSI) within a preselected hotspot. A second observer performed the same procedures on this cohort. The preselected hotspot was generated by a convolutional neural network (CNN) trained to detect all mitotic figures in digitized hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) sections. The second cohort comprised a multicenter, retrospective TNBC cohort (n = 298), of which the mitotic count was assessed by three independent observers on glass slides. The same CNN was applied on this cohort and the absolute number of mitotic figures in the hotspot was compared to the averaged mitotic count of the observers. Baseline interobserver agreement for glass slide assessment in cohort A was good (kappa 0.689; 95% CI 0.580-0.799). Using the CNN generated hotspot in WSI, the agreement score increased to 0.814 (95% CI 0.719-0.909). Automated counting by the CNN in comparison with observers counting in the predefined hotspot region yielded an average kappa of 0.724. We conclude that manual mitotic counting is not affected by assessment modality (glass slides, WSI) and that counting mitotic figures in WSI is feasible. Using a predefined hotspot area considerably improves reproducibility. Also, fully automated assessment of mitotic score appears to be feasible without introducing additional bias or variability.

Indexed as

Deep LearningAdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsCohort StudiesDiagnosis, Computer-AssistedFemaleHumansMiddle AgedMitotic IndexNetherlandsNeural Networks, ComputerObserver VariationProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.