Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33941830›Full record

ArticleNPJ precision oncology2021

Computer extracted gland features from H&E predicts prostate cancer recurrence comparably to a genomic companion diagnostic test: a large multi-site study.

Patrick Leo, Andrew Janowczyk, Robin Elliott, Nafiseh Janaki, Kaustav Bera, Rakesh Shiradkar, Xavier Farré, Pingfu Fu, Ayah El-Fahmawi, Mohammed Shahait and 22 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ precision oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. A Computational Pathology Model to Predict Docetaxel Benefit in Localized High-Risk and Metastatic Prostate Cancer.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Computational pathology in ovarian cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2022
    Review
  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

32 authors.

Patrick LeoDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2248-0610
Andrew JanowczykDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Robin ElliottDepartment of Pathology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Nafiseh JanakiDepartment of Pathology, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Kaustav BeraDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9831-6000
Rakesh ShiradkarDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2852-3869
Xavier FarréPublic Health Agency of Catalonia, Lleida, Catalonia, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8702-4643
Pingfu FuDepartment of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2334-5218
Ayah El-FahmawiDepartment of Urology, Penn Presbyterian Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Mohammed ShahaitDepartment of Urology, Penn Presbyterian Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Jessica KimDepartment of Urology, Penn Presbyterian Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
David LeeDepartment of Urology, Penn Presbyterian Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2133-9284
Kosj YamoahMoffitt Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9055-3538
Timothy R RebbeckT.H. Chan School of Public Health and Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA.
Francesca KhaniDepartments of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine and Urology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7238-8604
Brian D RobinsonDepartments of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine and Urology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5374-890X
Lauri EklundDepartment of Pathology, University of Turku, Institute of Biomedicine and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.
Ivan JamborDepartment of Pathology, University of Turku, Institute of Biomedicine and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.
Harri MerisaariDepartment of Pathology, University of Turku, Institute of Biomedicine and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.
Otto EttalaDepartment of Urology, University of Turku, Institute of Biomedicine and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.
Pekka TaimenDepartment of Pathology, University of Turku, Institute of Biomedicine and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8849-4604
Hannu J AronenDepartment of Pathology, University of Turku, Institute of Biomedicine and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.
Peter J BoströmDepartment of Urology, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.
Ashutosh TewariDepartment of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3146-4524
Cristina Magi-GalluzziDepartment of Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Eric KleinCleveland Clinic, Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland, OH, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1783-0698
Andrei PuryskoCleveland Clinic, Imaging Institute, Section of Abdominal Imaging, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Natalie Nc ShihDepartment of Pathology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Michael FeldmanDepartment of Pathology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Sanjay GuptaDepartment of Urology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Priti LalDepartment of Pathology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Anant MadabhushiDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA. anant.madabhushi@case.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5741-0399

Funding

Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative of ClevelandUL1TR002548 · NCATS · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI MCCOMSEY, GRACE A · 2018 to 2022
$35.5M
Pathology CoreU54CA254566 · NCI · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI MADABHUSHI, ANANT · 2020 to 2024
$5.0M
Pathology Image Informatics Platform for visualization, analysis and managementU24CA199374 · NCI · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI GURCAN, METIN NAFI, MADABHUSHI, ANANT · 2015 to 2019
$2.9M
A Study to Validate and Improve an Automated Image Analysis Algorithm to Detect Tuberculosis in Sputum Smear SlidesR43EB028736 · NIBIB · DIASCOPIC, LLC · PI MADABHUSHI, ANANT, SERIF, CARY · 2019 to 2019
$225k
BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH FACILITIESC06RR012463 · NCRR · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI KUTINA, KENNETH L · 1997 to 1997
–
BLRD VA I01 BX004121NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002548NCI NIH HHS U24 CA199374NCI NIH HHS U54 CA254566NCRR NIH HHS C06 RR012463NIBIB NIH HHS R43 EB028736
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Existing tools for post-radical prostatectomy (RP) prostate cancer biochemical recurrence (BCR) prognosis rely on human pathologist-derived parameters such as tumor grade, with the resulting inter-reviewer variability. Genomic companion diagnostic tests such as Decipher tend to be tissue destructive, expensive, and not routinely available in most centers. We present a tissue non-destructive method for automated BCR prognosis, termed "Histotyping", that employs computational image analysis of morphologic patterns of prostate tissue from a single, routinely acquired hematoxylin and eosin slide. Patients from two institutions (n = 214) were used to train Histotyping for identifying high-risk patients based on six features of glandular morphology extracted from RP specimens. Histotyping was validated for post-RP BCR prognosis on a separate set of n = 675 patients from five institutions and compared against Decipher on n = 167 patients. Histotyping was prognostic of BCR in the validation set (p < 0.001, univariable hazard ratio [HR] = 2.83, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.03-3.93, concordance index [c-index] = 0.68, median years-to-BCR: 1.7). Histotyping was also prognostic in clinically stratified subsets, such as patients with Gleason grade group 3 (HR = 4.09) and negative surgical margins (HR = 3.26). Histotyping was prognostic independent of grade group, margin status, pathological stage, and preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) (multivariable p < 0.001, HR = 2.09, 95% CI: 1.40-3.10, n = 648). The combination of Histotyping, grade group, and preoperative PSA outperformed Decipher (c-index = 0.75 vs. 0.70, n = 167). These results suggest that a prognostic classifier for prostate cancer based on digital images could serve as an alternative or complement to molecular-based companion diagnostic tests.

Identifiers

PMID33941830
PMCPMC8093226

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.