ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Virtual immunohistochemistry for ER and PR prediction in breast cancer histopathology: a two-stage conditional generative framework.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Immunohistochemistry (IHC) remains the gold standard for assessing key breast cancer biomarkers such as estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR). However, the staining process is resource-intensive, time-consuming, and dependent on specialized laboratory infrastructure. While recent advances in computational pathology have demonstrated the feasibility of predicting biomarker status directly from hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained tissue, most models lack visual interpretability, limiting clinical trust and adoption. Methods: We propose a two-stage deep learning pipeline for virtual immunohistochemistry. In Stage 1, a regression-based convolutional neural network predicts continuous ER/PR positivity from H&E image patches trained using a mean-squared-error objective; an Edge-Focused Loss was explored as an alternative but was not adopted. In Stage 2, the predicted biomarker percentage is incorporated as a spatial condition into a conditional generative adversarial network (cGAN), enabling the synthesis of virtual IHC images. The framework was evaluated on the IHC4BC dataset using 5-fold patient-level cross-validation. Results: The predictive model achieved a mean absolute error (MAE) of 9.14% for ER and 6.10% for PR under 5-fold patient-level cross-validation; treated as a clinical positive/negative classifier it reached an area under the ROC curve of 0.92 for ER and 0.74 for PR. The generative stage produced visually plausible virtual IHC images with biologically meaningful nuclear staining patterns. Although pixel-based metrics (SSIM and PSNR) favored the unconditioned baseline, domain-specific analysis of the deconvolved DAB channel showed substantially improved biomarker-specific staining fidelity for the conditional framework. For PR, the correlation between the generated DAB signal and ground-truth positivity increased from 0.32 (unconditioned baseline) to 0.61 in the deployed pipeline, reaching 0.82 under oracle conditioning, illustrating both the benefit of conditioning and the residual error propagated from Stage 1. Conclusion: This proof-of-concept study presents a dual-output computational framework that integrates quantitative biomarker prediction with interpretable virtual staining. The proposed approach may support preliminary biomarker assessment and workflow prioritization, particularly in resource-limited settings. However, external validation and domain-specific evaluation metrics are required before clinical application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.