MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Identification of a novel subtype of endometrial cancer with unfavorable outcome using artificial intelligence-based histopathology image analysis.

2022· article· en· W4281817629 on OpenAlexaff
Amirali Darbandsari, Hossein Farahani, Purang Abolmaesumi, Samuel Leung, Stefan Kommoss, David Huntsman, Aline Talhouk, C. Blake Gilks, Jessica N. McAlpine, Ali Bashashati

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia HospitalBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistopathologySubtypingMedicinePathologyH&E stainEndometrial cancerMicrosatellite instabilityOverdiagnosisInternal medicineOncologyImmunohistochemistryCancerBiologyComputer scienceGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5594 Background: Molecular subtyping of endometrial cancer (EC), unlike histopathological evaluation, offers an objective and reproducible classification system that has strong prognostic value and therapeutic implications. The Proactive Molecular risk classifier for Endometrial cancer (ProMisE) was developed by our team as a pragmatic, cost-effective, and clinically applicable molecular classifier for EC patients. ProMisE has four subtypes: (i) POLE mutant ( POLEmut), (ii) mismatch repair deficient (MMRd), (iii) p53 abnormal (p53abn) by immunohistochemistry, and (iv) NSMP (No Specific Molecular Profile), lacking any of the defining features of the other three subtypes. While ProMisE subtypes are associated with clinical outcomes, within each subtype, there are clinical/prognostic outliers. This is particularly true within the largest ProMisE subtype; NSMP (representing ̃50% of ECs), where a subset of patients experience a very aggressive disease course, comparable to what is observed in patients with p53abn ECs. Methods: We hypothesized that objective assessment of the digitized hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained histopathology slides of the largest and most diverse EC subset, NSMP, could potentially identify clinical outcome outliers. As such, we developed an artificial intelligence (AI)-based image analysis model to identify the NSMP cases that had similar histopathological features to the p53abn subtype, as assessed by H&E stain. We used a discovery cohort of 182 and an external validation cohort of 195 NSMP ECs. Results: Our AI-based image analysis model, based on deep convolutional neural networks, identified 21 (11.5%) out of the 182 NSMP cases with similar histopathological features as p53abn cases. We refer to these cases as ‘p53abn-like’ NSMPs. Compared to the rest of the NSMP cases, these cases had markedly inferior disease-specific survival (DSS) (10-year DSS 58.9% vs. 93.1% ( p<3.44e-8)) and progression-free survival (PFS) (10-year PFS 55.1% vs. 91.4% ( p<3.76e-6)). These findings were confirmed in our validation cohort, with 10.7% of the 195 patients categorized as ‘p53abn-like’ tumors with 10-year DSS of 82% vs. 51.3% ( p<5.28e-5) and PFS of 89.3% vs. 56.6% (p<2.15e-4). Conclusions: Utilizing an AI-based approach for histopathology image analysis, we have discovered ‘p53abn-like’ NSMPs, a novel subtype of NSMP ECs with morphological features similar to p53abn cases. ‘p53abn-like’ NSMPs exhibit similar clinical behavior as p53abn, having noticeably inferior outcome compared to the rest of the NSMP cases in two independent cohorts. These findings warrant further molecular investigation of this novel subtype of EC to identify the biological underpinning and future therapeutic strategies.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.290
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments→French-language works237,207→