Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34786761›Full record

ArticleHistopathology2022

Development and validation of a supervised deep learning algorithm for automated whole-slide programmed death-ligand 1 tumour proportion score assessment in non-small cell lung cancer.

Liesbeth M Hondelink, Melek Hüyük, Pieter E Postmus, Vincent T H B M Smit, Sami Blom, Jan H von der Thüsen, Danielle Cohen

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Histopathology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

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

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

7 authors.

Liesbeth M HondelinkDepartment of Pathology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7173-7443
Melek HüyükDepartment of Pulmonology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Pieter E PostmusDepartment of Pulmonology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Vincent T H B M SmitDepartment of Pathology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Sami BlomAiforia Technologies Oy, Helsinki, Finland.
Jan H von der ThüsenDepartment of Pathology, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Danielle CohenDepartment of Pathology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Funding

Aiforia Technologies AiForward grant
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsImmunohistochemical programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) staining to predict responsiveness to immunotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has several drawbacks: a robust gold standard is lacking, and there is substantial interobserver and intraobserver variance, with up to 20% discordance around cutoff points. The aim of this study was to develop a new deep learning-based PD-L1 tumour proportion score (TPS) algorithm, trained and validated on a routine diagnostic dataset of digitised PD-L1 (22C3, laboratory-developed test)-stained samples. METHODS AND

resultsWe designed a fully supervised deep learning algorithm for whole-slide PD-L1 assessment, consisting of four sequential convolutional neural networks (CNNs), using aiforia create software. We included 199 whole slide images (WSIs) of 'routine diagnostic' histology samples from stage IV NSCLC patients, and trained the algorithm by using a training set of 60 representative cases. We validated the algorithm by comparing the algorithm TPS with the reference score in a held-out validation set. The algorithm had similar concordance with the reference score (79%) as the pathologists had with one another (75%). The intraclass coefficient was 0.96 and Cohen's κ coefficient was 0.69 for the algorithm. Around the 1% and 50% cutoff points, concordance was also similar between pathologists and the algorithm.

conclusionsWe designed a new, deep learning-based PD-L1 TPS algorithm that is similarly able to assess PD-L1 expression in daily routine diagnostic cases as pathologists. Successful validation on routine diagnostic WSIs and detailed visual feedback show that this algorithm meets the requirements for functioning as a 'scoring assistant'.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsDeep LearningAgedAged, 80 and overB7-H1 AntigenCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungFemaleHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedB7-H1 AntigenCD274 protein, humanartificial intelligencecomputational pathologyimmunotherapynon-small cell lung cancerprogrammed death-ligand 1

Identifiers

PMID34786761
PMCPMC9299490

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.