Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37343766›Full record

ArticleModern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc2023

Artificial Intelligence-Based PTEN Loss Assessment as an Early Predictor of Prostate Cancer Metastasis After Surgery: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.

Palak Patel, Stephanie Harmon, Rachael Iseman, Olga Ludkowski, Heidi Auman, Sarah Hawley, Lisa F Newcomb, Daniel W Lin, Peter S Nelson, Ziding Feng and 23 more

Open access · greenAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

33 authors at 15 institutions in 5 countries.

Palak PatelDepartment of Cell Biology at The Arthur and Sonia Labatt Brain Tumour Research Centre at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Stephanie HarmonMolecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Artificial Intelligence Resource, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
Rachael IsemanDivision of Cancer Biology and Genetics, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Olga LudkowskiUniversity Health Network, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Heidi AumanCanary Foundation, Woodside, California.
Sarah HawleyCanary Foundation, Woodside, California.
Lisa F NewcombDepartment of Urology, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, Washington.
Daniel W LinDepartment of Urology, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, Washington.
Peter S NelsonDivision of Human Biology, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.
Ziding FengProgram of Biostatistics and Biomathematics, Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.
Hilary D BoyerProgram of Biostatistics and Biomathematics, Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.
Maria S TretiakovaDepartment of Pathology, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, Washington.
Larry D TrueDepartment of Pathology, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, Washington.
Funda Vakar-LopezDepartment of Pathology, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, Washington.
Peter R CarrollDepartment of Urology, University of California San Francisco and Helen Diller Family, Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, California.
Matthew R CooperbergDepartment of Urology, University of California San Francisco and Helen Diller Family, Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, California.
Emily ChanDepartment of Urology, University of California San Francisco and Helen Diller Family, Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, California.
Jeff SimkoDepartment of Urology, University of California San Francisco and Helen Diller Family, Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, California; Department of Pathology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Ladan FazliThe Vancouver Prostate Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Martin GleaveThe Vancouver Prostate Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Antonio Hurtado-CollThe Vancouver Prostate Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Ian M ThompsonCHRISTUS Medical Center Hospital, San Antonio, Texas.
Dean TroyerDepartment of Pathology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia; Department of Microbiology and Molecular Cell Biology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia.
Jesse K McKenneyDepartment of Pathology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
Wei WeiDepartment of Pathology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
Peter L ChoykeMolecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
Gennady BratslavskyDepartment of Urology, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York.
Baris TurkbeyMolecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Artificial Intelligence Resource, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
D Robert SiemensDepartment of Urology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Jeremy SquireDepartment of Genetics, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil.
Yingwei P PengDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada; Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
James D BrooksDepartment of Urology, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, California.
Tamara JamaspishviliDepartment of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada; Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York. Electronic address: jamaspit@upstate.edu.
University of Washington Medical Center · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · USFred Hutch Cancer Center · USNational Cancer Institute · USQueen's University · CAUniversity of British Columbia · CACanary Foundation · USCleveland Clinic · USSUNY Upstate Medical University · USChristus Health · USEastern Virginia Medical School · USHospital for Sick Children · CAStanford Medicine · USUniversidade de São Paulo · BRUniversity Health Network · CA

Funding

CCR Artificial Intelligence ResourceZIHBC012032 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI TÜRKBEY, BARIS · 2021 to 2025
$10.1M
Stanford Molecular and Cellular Characterization LaboratoryU01CA196387 · NCI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI BROOKS, JAMES D. · 2015 to 2020
$5.2M
Intramural NIH HHS Z99 CA999999NCI NIH HHS U01 CA196387
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) loss is associated with adverse outcomes in prostate cancer and can be measured via immunohistochemistry. The purpose of the study was to establish the clinical application of an in-house developed artificial intelligence (AI) image analysis workflow for automated detection of PTEN loss on digital images for identifying patients at risk of early recurrence and metastasis. Postsurgical tissue microarray sections from the Canary Foundation (n = 1264) stained with anti-PTEN antibody were evaluated independently by pathologist conventional visual scoring (cPTEN) and an automated AI-based image analysis pipeline (AI-PTEN). The relationship of PTEN evaluation methods with cancer recurrence and metastasis was analyzed using multivariable Cox proportional hazard and decision curve models. Both cPTEN scoring by the pathologist and quantification of PTEN loss by AI (high-risk AI-qPTEN) were significantly associated with shorter metastasis-free survival (MFS) in univariable analysis (cPTEN hazard ratio [HR], 1.54; CI, 1.07-2.21; P = .019; AI-qPTEN HR, 2.55; CI, 1.83-3.56; P < .001). In multivariable analyses, AI-qPTEN showed a statistically significant association with shorter MFS (HR, 2.17; CI, 1.49-3.17; P < .001) and recurrence-free survival (HR, 1.36; CI, 1.06-1.75; P = .016) when adjusting for relevant postsurgical clinical nomogram (Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment [CAPRA] postsurgical score [CAPRA-S]), whereas cPTEN does not show a statistically significant association (HR, 1.33; CI, 0.89-2; P = .2 and HR, 1.26; CI, 0.99-1.62; P = .063, respectively) when adjusting for CAPRA-S risk stratification. More importantly, AI-qPTEN was associated with shorter MFS in patients with favorable pathological stage and negative surgical margins (HR, 2.72; CI, 1.46-5.06; P = .002). Workflow also demonstrated enhanced clinical utility in decision curve analysis, more accurately identifying men who might benefit from adjuvant therapy postsurgery. This study demonstrates the clinical value of an affordable and fully automated AI-powered PTEN assessment for evaluating the risk of developing metastasis or disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Adding the AI-qPTEN assessment workflow to clinical variables may affect postoperative surveillance or management options, particularly in low-risk patients.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBiomarkers, TumorProstatic NeoplasmsPTEN PhosphohydrolaseAgedHumansImmunohistochemistryMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPredictive Value of TestsProstatectomyRetrospective StudiesBiomarkers, TumorPTEN PhosphohydrolasePTEN protein, humanartificial intelligencemetastasisprostate cancerquantitative PTEN lossrisk stratification

Identifiers

PMID37343766
PMCPMC10592257
OpenAlexW4381162988

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.