Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36068311›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Deep learning-based breast cancer grading and survival analysis on whole-slide histopathology images.

Suzanne C Wetstein, Vincent M T de Jong, Nikolas Stathonikos, Mark Opdam, Gwen M H E Dackus, Josien P W Pluim, Paul J van Diest, Mitko Veta

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing 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

40 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Advancements in Cancer Survival Prediction: A Systematic Review of Classical and Modern Approaches.Indian journal of community medicine : official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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

8 authors.

Suzanne C WetsteinMedical Image Analysis Group, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Groene Loper 5, 5612 AE, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Vincent M T de JongDepartment of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Nikolas StathonikosDepartment of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, University Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Mark OpdamDepartment of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Gwen M H E DackusDepartment of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Josien P W PluimMedical Image Analysis Group, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Groene Loper 5, 5612 AE, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Paul J van DiestDepartment of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, University Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Mitko VetaMedical Image Analysis Group, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Groene Loper 5, 5612 AE, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. m.veta@tue.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Breast cancer tumor grade is strongly associated with patient survival. In current clinical practice, pathologists assign tumor grade after visual analysis of tissue specimens. However, different studies show significant inter-observer variation in breast cancer grading. Computer-based breast cancer grading methods have been proposed but only work on specifically selected tissue areas and/or require labor-intensive annotations to be applied to new datasets. In this study, we trained and evaluated a deep learning-based breast cancer grading model that works on whole-slide histopathology images. The model was developed using whole-slide images from 706 young (< 40 years) invasive breast cancer patients with corresponding tumor grade (low/intermediate vs. high), and its constituents nuclear grade, tubule formation and mitotic rate. The performance of the model was evaluated using Cohen's kappa on an independent test set of 686 patients using annotations by expert pathologists as ground truth. The predicted low/intermediate (n = 327) and high (n = 359) grade groups were used to perform survival analysis. The deep learning system distinguished low/intermediate versus high tumor grade with a Cohen's Kappa of 0.59 (80% accuracy) compared to expert pathologists. In subsequent survival analysis the two groups predicted by the system were found to have a significantly different overall survival (OS) and disease/recurrence-free survival (DRFS/RFS) (p < 0.05). Univariate Cox hazard regression analysis showed statistically significant hazard ratios (p < 0.05). After adjusting for clinicopathologic features and stratifying for molecular subtype the hazard ratios showed a trend but lost statistical significance for all endpoints. In conclusion, we developed a deep learning-based model for automated grading of breast cancer on whole-slide images. The model distinguishes between low/intermediate and high grade tumors and finds a trend in the survival of the two predicted groups.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsDeep LearningFemaleHumansNeoplasm GradingObserver VariationPathologistsSurvival Analysis

Identifiers

PMID36068311
PMCPMC9448798

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.