Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35976907›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Deep learning can predict survival directly from histology in clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

Frederik Wessels, Max Schmitt, Eva Krieghoff-Henning, Jakob N Kather, Malin Nientiedt, Maximilian C Kriegmair, Thomas S Worst, Manuel Neuberger, Matthias Steeg, Zoran V Popovic and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Developing a Histology-Based Artificial Intelligence Biomarker to Predict Adjuvant Chemotherapy Benefit in Pancreatic Cancer.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Applications of artificial intelligence in urologic oncology.Investigative and clinical urology · 2024
    Review
  18. Review
  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

17 authors.

Frederik WesselsDigital Biomarkers for Oncology Group, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4213-8692
Max SchmittDigital Biomarkers for Oncology Group, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Eva Krieghoff-HenningDigital Biomarkers for Oncology Group, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Jakob N KatherDepartment of Medicine III, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Malin NientiedtDepartment of Urology & Urological Surgery, Medical Faculty Mannheim of Heidelberg University, University Medical Center Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.
Maximilian C KriegmairDepartment of Urology & Urological Surgery, Medical Faculty Mannheim of Heidelberg University, University Medical Center Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.
Thomas S WorstDepartment of Urology & Urological Surgery, Medical Faculty Mannheim of Heidelberg University, University Medical Center Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.
Manuel NeubergerDepartment of Urology & Urological Surgery, Medical Faculty Mannheim of Heidelberg University, University Medical Center Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.
Matthias SteegInstitute of Pathology, Medical Faculty Mannheim of Heidelberg University, University Medical Center Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.
Zoran V PopovicInstitute of Pathology, Medical Faculty Mannheim of Heidelberg University, University Medical Center Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.
Timo GaiserInstitute of Pathology, Medical Faculty Mannheim of Heidelberg University, University Medical Center Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.
Christof von KalleDepartment of Clinical-Translational Sciences, Berlin Institute of Health (BIH), Charité University Medicine, Berlin, Germany.
Jochen S UtikalClinical Cooperation Unit Dermato-Oncology, University Medical Center Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Mannheim and Heidelberg, Germany.
Stefan FröhlingNational Center for Tumor Diseases, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Maurice S MichelDepartment of Urology & Urological Surgery, Medical Faculty Mannheim of Heidelberg University, University Medical Center Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.
Philipp NuhnDepartment of Urology & Urological Surgery, Medical Faculty Mannheim of Heidelberg University, University Medical Center Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.
Titus J BrinkerDigital Biomarkers for Oncology Group, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3620-5919

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) risk-dependent diagnostic and therapeutic algorithms are routinely implemented in clinical practice. Artificial intelligence-based image analysis has the potential to improve outcome prediction and thereby risk stratification. Thus, we investigated whether a convolutional neural network (CNN) can extract relevant image features from a representative hematoxylin and eosin-stained slide to predict 5-year overall survival (5y-OS) in ccRCC. The CNN was trained to predict 5y-OS in a binary manner using slides from TCGA and validated using an independent in-house cohort. Multivariable logistic regression was used to combine of the CNNs prediction and clinicopathological parameters. A mean balanced accuracy of 72.0% (standard deviation [SD] = 7.9%), sensitivity of 72.4% (SD = 10.6%), specificity of 71.7% (SD = 11.9%) and area under receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) of 0.75 (SD = 0.07) was achieved on the TCGA training set (n = 254 patients / WSIs) using 10-fold cross-validation. On the external validation cohort (n = 99 patients / WSIs), mean accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and AUROC were 65.5% (95%-confidence interval [CI]: 62.9-68.1%), 86.2% (95%-CI: 81.8-90.5%), 44.9% (95%-CI: 40.2-49.6%), and 0.70 (95%-CI: 0.69-0.71). A multivariable model including age, tumor stage and metastasis yielded an AUROC of 0.75 on the TCGA cohort. The inclusion of the CNN-based classification (Odds ratio = 4.86, 95%-CI: 2.70-8.75, p < 0.01) raised the AUROC to 0.81. On the validation cohort, both models showed an AUROC of 0.88. In univariable Cox regression, the CNN showed a hazard ratio of 3.69 (95%-CI: 2.60-5.23, p < 0.01) on TCGA and 2.13 (95%-CI: 0.92-4.94, p = 0.08) on external validation. The results demonstrate that the CNN's image-based prediction of survival is promising and thus this widely applicable technique should be further investigated with the aim of improving existing risk stratification in ccRCC.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Renal CellDeep LearningKidney NeoplasmsArtificial IntelligenceHumansNeural Networks, ComputerRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID35976907
PMCPMC9385058

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.