Deep learning supported mitoses counting on whole slide images: A pilot study for validating breast cancer grading in the clinical workflow

Clinical implementation of artificial-intelligence-assisted detection of breast cancer metastases in sentinel lymph nodes: the CONFIDENT-B single-center, non-randomized clinical trial

Pathologists' assessment of sentinel lymph nodes (SNs) for breast cancer (BC) metastases is a treatment-guiding yet labor-intensive and costly task because of the performance of immunohistochemistry (IHC) in morphologically negative cases. This non-randomized, single-center clinical trial (International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number:14323711) assessed the efficacy of an artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted workflow for detecting BC metastases in SNs while maintaining diagnostic safety standards. From September 2022 to May 2023, 190 SN specimens were consecutively enrolled and allocated biweekly to the intervention arm (n = 100) or control arm (n = 90). In both arms, digital whole-slide images of hematoxylin-eosin sections of SN specimens were assessed by an expert pathologist, who was assisted by the 'Metastasis Detection' app (Visiopharm) in the intervention arm. Our primary endpoint showed a significantly reduced adjusted relative risk of IHC use (0.680, 95% confidence interval: 0.347-0.878) for AI-assisted pathologists, with subsequent cost savings of ~3,000 €. Secondary endpoints showed significant time reductions and up to 30% improved sensitivity for AI-assisted pathologists. This trial demonstrates the safety and potential for cost and time savings of AI assistance.

[Artificial intelligence for pathology-how, where, and why?]

Artificial intelligence promises many innovations and simplifications in pathology, but also raises just as many questions and uncertainties. In this article, we provide a brief overview of the current status, the goals already achieved by existing algorithms, and the remaining challenges.

Artificial intelligence in digital histopathology for predicting patient prognosis and treatment efficacy in breast cancer

INTRODUCTION

Histological images contain phenotypic information predictive of patient outcomes. Due to the heavy workload of pathologists, the time-consuming nature of quantitatively assessing histological features, and human eye limitations to recognize spatial patterns, manually extracting prognostic information in routine pathological workflows remains challenging. Digital pathology has facilitated the mining and quantification of these features utilizing whole-slide image (WSI) scanners and artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms. AI algorithms to identify image-based biomarkers from the tumor microenvironment (TME) have the potential to revolutionize the field of oncology, reducing delays between diagnosis and prognosis determination, allowing for rapid stratification of patients and prescription of optimal treatment regimes, thereby improving patient outcomes.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, the authors discuss how AI algorithms and digital pathology can predict breast cancer patient prognosis and treatment outcomes using image-based biomarkers, along with the challenges of adopting this technology in clinical settings.

EXPERT OPINION

The integration of AI and digital pathology presents significant potential for analyzing the TME and its diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive value in breast cancer patients. Widespread clinical adoption of AI faces ethical, regulatory, and technical challenges, although prospective trials may offer reassurance and promote uptake, ultimately improving patient outcomes by reducing diagnosis-to-prognosis delivery delays.

Pros and cons of artificial intelligence implementation in diagnostic pathology

The rapid introduction of digital pathology has greatly facilitated development of artificial intelligence (AI) models in pathology that have shown great promise in assisting morphological diagnostics and quantitation of therapeutic targets. We are now at a tipping point where companies have started to bring algorithms to the market, and questions arise whether the pathology community is ready to implement AI in routine workflow. However, concerns also arise about the use of AI in pathology. This article reviews the pros and cons of introducing AI in diagnostic pathology.

Artificial Intelligence-Based Mitosis Scoring in Breast Cancer: Clinical Application

In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) has demonstrated exceptional performance in mitosis identification and quantification. However, the implementation of AI in clinical practice needs to be evaluated against the existing methods. This study is aimed at assessing the optimal method of using AI-based mitotic figure scoring in breast cancer (BC). We utilized whole slide images from a large cohort of BC with extended follow-up comprising a discovery (n = 1715) and a validation (n = 859) set (Nottingham cohort). The Cancer Genome Atlas of breast invasive carcinoma (TCGA-BRCA) cohort (n = 757) was used as an external test set. Employing automated mitosis detection, the mitotic count was assessed using 3 different methods, the mitotic count per tumor area (MCT; calculated by dividing the number of mitotic figures by the total tumor area), the mitotic index (MI; defined as the average number of mitotic figures per 1000 malignant cells), and the mitotic activity index (MAI; defined as the number of mitotic figures in 3 mm2 area within the mitotic hotspot). These automated metrics were evaluated and compared based on their correlation with the well-established visual scoring method of the Nottingham grading system and Ki67 score, clinicopathologic parameters, and patient outcomes. AI-based mitotic scores derived from the 3 methods (MCT, MI, and MAI) were significantly correlated with the clinicopathologic characteristics and patient survival (P < .001). However, the mitotic counts and the derived cutoffs varied significantly between the 3 methods. Only MAI and MCT were positively correlated with the gold standard visual scoring method used in Nottingham grading system (r = 0.8 and r = 0.7, respectively) and Ki67 scores (r = 0.69 and r = 0.55, respectively), and MAI was the only independent predictor of survival (P < .05) in multivariate Cox regression analysis. For clinical applications, the optimum method of scoring mitosis using AI needs to be considered. MAI can provide reliable and reproducible results and can accurately quantify mitotic figures in BC.

Enhancing mitosis quantification and detection in meningiomas with computational digital pathology

Mitosis is a critical criterion for meningioma grading. However, pathologists' assessment of mitoses is subject to significant inter-observer variation due to challenges in locating mitosis hotspots and accurately detecting mitotic figures. To address this issue, we leverage digital pathology and propose a computational strategy to enhance pathologists' mitosis assessment. The strategy has two components: (1) A depth-first search algorithm that quantifies the mathematically maximum mitotic count in 10 consecutive high-power fields, which can enhance the preciseness, especially in cases with borderline mitotic count. (2) Implementing a collaborative sphere to group a set of pathologists to detect mitoses under each high-power field, which can mitigate subjective random errors in mitosis detection originating from individual detection errors. By depth-first search algorithm (1) , we analyzed 19 meningioma slides and discovered that the proposed algorithm upgraded two borderline cases verified at consensus conferences. This improvement is attributed to the algorithm's ability to quantify the mitotic count more comprehensively compared to other conventional methods of counting mitoses. In implementing a collaborative sphere (2) , we evaluated the correctness of mitosis detection from grouped pathologists and/or pathology residents, where each member of the group annotated a set of 48 high-power field images for mitotic figures independently. We report that groups with sizes of three can achieve an average precision of 0.897 and sensitivity of 0.699 in mitosis detection, which is higher than an average pathologist in this study (precision: 0.750, sensitivity: 0.667). The proposed computational strategy can be integrated with artificial intelligence workflow, which envisions the future of achieving a rapid and robust mitosis assessment by interactive assisting algorithms that can ultimately benefit patient management.