Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31992350›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research : BCR2020

A deep learning image-based intrinsic molecular subtype classifier of breast tumors reveals tumor heterogeneity that may affect survival.

Mustafa I Jaber, Bing Song, Clive Taylor, Charles J Vaske, Stephen C Benz, Shahrooz Rabizadeh, Patrick Soon-Shiong, Christopher W Szeto

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer research : BCR, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
65citing papers in PubMed
9.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

65 citing papers in PubMed, 116 citations in OpenAlex.

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

5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mustafa I JaberNantOmics LLC, 9920 Jefferson Blvd., Culver City, CA, 90232, USA.
Bing SongImmunityBio, 9920 Jefferson Blvd., Culver City, CA, 90232, USA.
Clive TaylorDepartment of Pathology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, HMR 2011 Zonal Ave., Health Sciences Campus, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA.
Charles J VaskeImmunityBio, 2901 Mission St. Ext., Santa Cruz, CA, 95066, USA.
Stephen C BenzImmunityBio, 2901 Mission St. Ext., Santa Cruz, CA, 95066, USA.
Shahrooz RabizadehNantOmics LLC, 9920 Jefferson Blvd., Culver City, CA, 90232, USA.
Patrick Soon-ShiongImmunityBio, 9920 Jefferson Blvd., Culver City, CA, 90232, USA.
Christopher W SzetoImmunityBio, 2901 Mission St. Ext., Santa Cruz, CA, 95066, USA. Christopher.Szeto@ImmunityBio.com.ORCID 0000-0002-2344-7716
ImmunityBio (United States) · USUniversity of Southern California · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBreast cancer intrinsic molecular subtype (IMS) as classified by the expression-based PAM50 assay is considered a strong prognostic feature, even when controlled for by standard clinicopathological features such as age, grade, and nodal status, yet the molecular testing required to elucidate these subtypes is not routinely performed. Furthermore, when such bulk assays as RNA sequencing are performed, intratumoral heterogeneity that may affect prognosis and therapeutic decision-making can be missed.

methodsAs a more facile and readily available method for determining IMS in breast cancer, we developed a deep learning approach for approximating PAM50 intrinsic subtyping using only whole-slide images of H&E-stained breast biopsy tissue sections. This algorithm was trained on images from 443 tumors that had previously undergone PAM50 subtyping to classify small patches of the images into four major molecular subtypes-Basal-like, HER2-enriched, Luminal A, and Luminal B-as well as Basal vs. non-Basal. The algorithm was subsequently used for subtype classification of a held-out set of 222 tumors.

resultsThis deep learning image-based classifier correctly subtyped the majority of samples in the held-out set of tumors. However, in many cases, significant heterogeneity was observed in assigned subtypes across patches from within a single whole-slide image. We performed further analysis of heterogeneity, focusing on contrasting Luminal A and Basal-like subtypes because classifications from our deep learning algorithm-similar to PAM50-are associated with significant differences in survival between these two subtypes. Patients with tumors classified as heterogeneous were found to have survival intermediate between Luminal A and Basal patients, as well as more varied levels of hormone receptor expression patterns.

conclusionsHere, we present a method for minimizing manual work required to identify cancer-rich patches among all multiscale patches in H&E-stained WSIs that can be generalized to any indication. These results suggest that advanced deep machine learning methods that use only routinely collected whole-slide images can approximate RNA-seq-based molecular tests such as PAM50 and, importantly, may increase detection of heterogeneous tumors that may require more detailed subtype analysis.

Indexed as

Deep LearningGene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticBiomarkers, TumorBreast NeoplasmsErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMolecular TypingNeoplasm GradingSurvival RateBiomarkers, TumorERBB2 protein, humanErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesBreast cancerDeep learning algorithmIntrinsic molecular subtype (IMS)Whole-slide imaging (WSI)

Identifiers

PMID31992350
PMCPMC6988279
OpenAlexW3008355217

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.