Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32690604›Full record

ArticleGut2021

Image-based consensus molecular subtype (imCMS) classification of colorectal cancer using deep learning.

Korsuk Sirinukunwattana, Enric Domingo, Susan D Richman, Keara L Redmond, Andrew Blake, Clare Verrill, Simon J Leedham, Aikaterini Chatzipli, Claire Hardy, Celina M Whalley and 15 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gut, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 147 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
147citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

147 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Evaluating [BMJ open · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. The consensus molecular subtypes of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

87 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

25 authors.

Korsuk SirinukunwattanaInstitute of Biomedical Engineering (IBME), Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Enric DomingoDepartment of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK viktor.koelzer@usz.ch jens.rittscher@eng.ox.ac.uk enric.domingo@oncology.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-4390-8767
Susan D RichmanDepartment of Pathology and Tumour Biology, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, Leeds, UK.
Keara L RedmondCentre for Cancer Research and Cell Biology, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Andrew BlakeDepartment of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Clare VerrillOxford NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals Trust, Oxford, UK.
Simon J LeedhamGastrointestinal Stem-cell Biology Laboratory, Oxford Centre for Cancer Gene Research, Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, Oxford, UK.
Aikaterini ChatzipliWellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, UK.
Claire HardyWellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, UK.
Celina M WhalleyInstitute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Chieh-Hsi WuDepartment of Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Andrew D BeggsSchool of Cancer Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0784-2967
Ultan McDermottWellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, UK.
Philip D DunneCentre for Cancer Research and Cell Biology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9160-283X
Angela MeadeMRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, London, UK.
Steven M WalkerAlmac Diagnostics Ltd, Craigavon, UK.
Graeme I MurrayDepartment of Pathology, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Leslie SamuelDepartment of Clinical Oncology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK.
Matthew SeymourDepartment of Oncology, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, Leeds, UK.
Ian TomlinsonInstitute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3037-1470
Phil QuirkeDepartment of Pathology and Tumour Biology, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, Leeds, UK.
Timothy MaughanCRUK/MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0580-5065
Jens Rittscher *Institute of Biomedical Engineering (IBME), Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK viktor.koelzer@usz.ch jens.rittscher@eng.ox.ac.uk enric.domingo@oncology.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-8528-8298
Viktor H Koelzer *Department of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK viktor.koelzer@usz.ch jens.rittscher@eng.ox.ac.uk enric.domingo@oncology.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-9206-4885
S:CORT consortium

Funding

Cancer Research UK 24430Department of HealthMedical Research Council MR/M009157/1Medical Research Council MR/M016587/1Wellcome Trust 206314/Z/17/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveComplex phenotypes captured on histological slides represent the biological processes at play in individual cancers, but the link to underlying molecular classification has not been clarified or systematised. In colorectal cancer (CRC), histological grading is a poor predictor of disease progression, and consensus molecular subtypes (CMSs) cannot be distinguished without gene expression profiling. We hypothesise that image analysis is a cost-effective tool to associate complex features of tissue organisation with molecular and outcome data and to resolve unclassifiable or heterogeneous cases. In this study, we present an image-based approach to predict CRC CMS from standard H&E sections using deep learning.

designTraining and evaluation of a neural network were performed using a total of n=1206 tissue sections with comprehensive multi-omic data from three independent datasets (training on FOCUS trial, n=278 patients; test on rectal cancer biopsies, GRAMPIAN cohort, n=144 patients; and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), n=430 patients). Ground truth CMS calls were ascertained by matching random forest and single sample predictions from CMS classifier.

resultsImage-based CMS (imCMS) accurately classified slides in unseen datasets from TCGA (n=431 slides, AUC)=0.84) and rectal cancer biopsies (n=265 slides, AUC=0.85). imCMS spatially resolved intratumoural heterogeneity and provided secondary calls correlating with bioinformatic prediction from molecular data. imCMS classified samples previously unclassifiable by RNA expression profiling, reproduced the expected correlations with genomic and epigenetic alterations and showed similar prognostic associations as transcriptomic CMS.

conclusionThis study shows that a prediction of RNA expression classifiers can be made from H&E images, opening the door to simple, cheap and reliable biological stratification within routine workflows.

Indexed as

Deep LearningBiomarkers, TumorBiopsyColorectal NeoplasmsConsensusDatasets as TopicDisease ProgressionGene Expression ProfilingGene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticHumansNeoplasm GradingPhenotypePredictive Value of TestsPrognosisRNABiomarkers, TumorRNAcolorectal pathologycomputerised image analysismolecular pathology

Identifiers

PMID32690604
PMCPMC7873419

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.