Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36347887›Full record

ArticleNPJ breast cancer2022

Deep learning for fully-automated nuclear pleomorphism scoring in breast cancer.

Caner Mercan, Maschenka Balkenhol, Roberto Salgado, Mark Sherman, Philippe Vielh, Willem Vreuls, António Polónia, Hugo M Horlings, Wilko Weichert, Jodi M Carter and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ breast cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Cutting-edge technology and automation in the pathology laboratory.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2024
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

17 authors.

Caner MercanRadboud University Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1913-4669
Maschenka BalkenholRadboud University Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Roberto SalgadoGZA-ZNA Hospitals, Department of Pathology, Antwerp, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1110-3801
Mark ShermanMayo Clinic, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Rochester, MN, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9222-8808
Philippe VielhMedipath & American Hospital of Paris, Paris, France.
Willem VreulsCanisius Wilhelmina Ziekenhuis, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
António PolóniaUniversity of Porto, Institute of Molecular Pathology and Immunology Department of Pathology, Ipatimup Diagnostics, Porto, Portugal.
Hugo M HorlingsThe Netherlands Cancer Institute, Department of Molecular Pathology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4782-8828
Wilko WeichertTechnical University Munich, Institute of Pathology, Munich, Germany.
Jodi M CarterDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Peter BultRadboud University Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Matthias ChristgenHannover Medical School, Institute of Pathology, Hannover, Germany.
Carsten DenkertPhilipps University of Marburg, Institute of Pathology, Marburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2249-0982
Koen van de VijverGhent University Hospital and Cancer Research Institute Ghent, Department of Pathology, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2026-9790
John-Melle BokhorstRadboud University Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Jeroen van der Laak *Radboud University Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7982-0754
Francesco Ciompi *Radboud University Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. francesco.ciompi@radboudumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8327-9606

Funding

EC | Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation H2020) 825292
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To guide the choice of treatment, every new breast cancer is assessed for aggressiveness (i.e., graded) by an experienced histopathologist. Typically, this tumor grade consists of three components, one of which is the nuclear pleomorphism score (the extent of abnormalities in the overall appearance of tumor nuclei). The degree of nuclear pleomorphism is subjectively classified from 1 to 3, where a score of 1 most closely resembles epithelial cells of normal breast epithelium and 3 shows the greatest abnormalities. Establishing numerical criteria for grading nuclear pleomorphism is challenging, and inter-observer agreement is poor. Therefore, we studied the use of deep learning to develop fully automated nuclear pleomorphism scoring in breast cancer. The reference standard used for training the algorithm consisted of the collective knowledge of an international panel of 10 pathologists on a curated set of regions of interest covering the entire spectrum of tumor morphology in breast cancer. To fully exploit the information provided by the pathologists, a first-of-its-kind deep regression model was trained to yield a continuous scoring rather than limiting the pleomorphism scoring to the standard three-tiered system. Our approach preserves the continuum of nuclear pleomorphism without necessitating a large data set with explicit annotations of tumor nuclei. Once translated to the traditional system, our approach achieves top pathologist-level performance in multiple experiments on regions of interest and whole-slide images, compared to a panel of 10 and 4 pathologists, respectively.

Identifiers

PMID36347887
PMCPMC9643392

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.