Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39710952›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of pathology2025

Tumour purity assessment with deep learning in colorectal cancer and impact on molecular analysis.

Lydia A Schoenpflug, Aikaterini Chatzipli, Korsuk Sirinukunwattana, Susan Richman, Andrew Blake, James Robineau, Kirsten D Mertz, Clare Verrill, Simon J Leedham, Claire Hardy and 16 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of pathology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

26 authors.

Lydia A Schoenpflug *Department of Pathology and Molecular Pathology, University Hospital and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0009-0009-6703-9368
Aikaterini Chatzipli *Wellcome Sanger Institute, Hinxton, UK.
Korsuk SirinukunwattanaInstitute of Biomedical Engineering (IBME), Department of Engineering Science, Old Road Campus Research Building, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Susan RichmanDepartment of Pathology and Tumour Biology, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, Leeds, UK.
Andrew BlakeDepartment of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8154-6253
James RobineauDepartment of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Kirsten D MertzCantonal Hospital Baselland, Institute of Pathology, Liestal, Switzerland.
Clare VerrillLi Ka Shing Centre for Health Information and Discovery, Big Data Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4905-8233
Simon J LeedhamGastrointestinal Stem-cell Biology Laboratory, Oxford Centre for Cancer Gene Research, Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1476-6982
Claire HardyWellcome Sanger Institute, Hinxton, UK.
Celina WhalleyInstitute of Cancer and Genomic Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Keara RedmondThe Patrick G Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, Queens University, Belfast, UK.
Philip DunneThe Patrick G Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, Queens University, Belfast, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9160-283X
Steven WalkerThe Patrick G Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, Queens University, Belfast, UK.
Andrew D BeggsInstitute of Cancer and Genomic Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0784-2967
Ultan McDermottWellcome Sanger Institute, Hinxton, UK.
Graeme I MurrayDepartment of Pathology, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Leslie M SamuelDepartment of Clinical Oncology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, NHS GRAMPIAN, Aberdeen, UK.
Matthew SeymourDepartment of Pathology and Tumour Biology, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, Leeds, UK.
Ian TomlinsonUniversity of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Philip QuirkeDepartment of Pathology and Tumour Biology, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, Leeds, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3597-5444
S:CORT consortium
Jens RittscherInstitute of Biomedical Engineering (IBME), Department of Engineering Science, Old Road Campus Research Building, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Tim MaughanDepartment of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Enric DomingoDepartment of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Viktor H KoelzerDepartment of Pathology and Molecular Pathology, University Hospital and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

CRUK and MRC MR/M016587/1EPSRC Seebibyte programme EP/M013774/1Medical Research Council MC_UU_00004/01Medical Research Council MR/M016587/1NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research CentreSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung P2SKP3_168322/1Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung P2SKP3_168322/2Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tumour content plays a pivotal role in directing the bioinformatic analysis of molecular profiles such as copy number variation (CNV). In clinical application, tumour purity estimation (TPE) is achieved either through visual pathological review [conventional pathology (CP)] or the deconvolution of molecular data. While CP provides a direct measurement, it demonstrates modest reproducibility and lacks standardisation. Conversely, deconvolution methods offer an indirect assessment with uncertain accuracy, underscoring the necessity for innovative approaches. SoftCTM is an open-source, multiorgan deep-learning (DL) model for the detection of tumour and non-tumour cells in H&E-stained slides, developed within the Overlapped Cell on Tissue Dataset for Histopathology (OCELOT) Challenge 2023. Here, using three large multicentre colorectal cancer (CRC) cohorts (N = 1,097 patients) with digital pathology and multi-omic data, we compare the utility and accuracy of TPE with SoftCTM versus CP and bioinformatic deconvolution methods (RNA expression, DNA methylation) for downstream molecular analysis, including CNV profiling. SoftCTM showed technical repeatability when applied twice on the same slide (r = 1.0) and excellent correlations in paired H&E slides (r > 0.9). TPEs profiled by SoftCTM correlated highly with RNA expression (r = 0.59) and DNA methylation (r = 0.40), while TPEs by CP showed a lower correlation with RNA expression (r = 0.41) and DNA methylation (r = 0.29). We show that CP and deconvolution methods respectively underestimate and overestimate tumour content compared to SoftCTM, resulting in 6-13% differing CNV calls. In summary, TPE with SoftCTM enables reproducibility, automation, and standardisation at single-cell resolution. SoftCTM estimates (M = 58.9%, SD ±16.3%) reconcile the overestimation by molecular data extrapolation (RNA expression: M = 79.2%, SD ±10.5, DNA methylation: M = 62.7%, SD ±11.8%) and underestimation by CP (M = 35.9%, SD ±13.1%), providing a more reliable middle ground. A fully integrated computational pathology solution could therefore be used to improve downstream molecular analyses for research and clinics. © 2024 The Author(s). The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsDeep LearningBiomarkers, TumorComputational BiologyDNA Copy Number VariationsDNA MethylationFemaleHumansMaleReproducibility of ResultsBiomarkers, Tumorartificial intelligencecolorectal cancerdiagnostic molecular pathologypathologypersonalised medicine

Identifiers

PMID39710952
PMCPMC11717495

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.