Cited by 713AI in cancer detectionRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment

Automated deep-learning system for Gleason grading of prostate cancer using biopsies: a diagnostic study

Open access
Bulten, Wouter, Pinckaers, Hans, van Boven, Hester, Vink, Robert, de Bel, Thomas, van Ginneken, Bram, van der Laak, Jeroen, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa, Christina +1 more·2020·The Lancet Oncology

Abstract

Background The Gleason score is the strongest correlating predictor of recurrence for prostate cancer, but has substantial inter-observer variability, limiting its usefulness for individual patients. Specialised urological pathologists have greater concordance; however, such expertise is not widely available. Prostate cancer diagnostics could thus benefit from robust, reproducible Gleason grading. We aimed to investigate the potential of deep learning to perform automated Gleason grading of prostate biopsies.Methods In this retrospective study, we developed a deep-learning system to grade prostate biopsies following the Gleason grading standard. The system was developed using randomly selected biopsies, sampled by the biopsy Gleason score, from patients at the Radboud University Medical Center (pathology report dated between Jan 1, 2012, and Dec 31, 2017). A semi-automatic labelling technique was used to circumvent the need for manual annotations by pathologists, using pathologists' reports as the reference standard during training. The system was developed to delineate individual glands, assign Gleason growth patterns, and determine the biopsy-level grade. For validation of the method, a consensus reference standard was set by three expert urological pathologists on an independent test set of 550 biopsies. Of these 550, 100 were used in an observer experiment, in which the system, 13 pathologists, and two pathologists in training were compared with respect to the reference standard. The system was also compared to an external test dataset of 886 cores, which contained 245 cores from a different centre that were independently graded by two pathologists.Findings We collected 5759 biopsies from 1243 patients. The developed system achieved a high agreement with the reference standard (quadratic Cohen's kappa 0·918, 95% CI 0·891-0·941) and scored highly at clinical decision thresholds: benign versus malignant (area under the curve 0·990, 95% CI 0·982-0·996), grade group of 2 or more (0·978, 0·966-0·988), and grade group of 3 or more (0·974, 0·962-0·984). In an observer experiment, the deep-learning system scored higher (kappa 0·854) than the panel (median kappa 0·819), outperforming 10 of 15 pathologist observers. On the external test dataset, the system obtained a high agreement with the reference standard set independently by two pathologists (quadratic Cohen's kappa 0·723 and 0·707) and within inter-observer variability (kappa 0·71).Interpretation Our automated deep-learning system achieved a performance similar to pathologists for Gleason grading and could potentially contribute to prostate cancer diagnosis. The system could potentially assist pathologists by screening biopsies, providing second opinions on grade group, and presenting quantitative measurements of volume percentages.Funding Dutch Cancer Society.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1470-2045(19)30739-9

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 39 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Naik S, Doyle S, Feldman M, Tomaszewski J, Madabhushi A. Gland segmentation and computerized gleason grading of prostate histology by integrating low-, high-level and domain specific information. Proceedings of 2nd Workshop on Microsopic Image Analysis with Applications in Biology; Piscataway, NJ, USA; 2007.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bulten, W., Pinckaers, H., van Boven, H., Vink, R., de Bel, T., van Ginneken, B., van der Laak, J., Hulsbergen-van de Kaa, C., & Litjens, G.
Affiliations
Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
Corresponding author
Bulten, Wouter
Venue
The Lancet Oncology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-02
Volume
21
Issue
2
Pages
233-241
ISSN
1470-2045 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2999091210
Cited by
705
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 84 · 2025: 96 · 2024: 112 · 2023: 115 · 2022: 128 · 2021: 115 · 2020: 55
FWCI
40.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Department of Health and Social Care
  • KWF Kankerbestrijding (KUN 2015-7970)
  • Radboud Universitair Medisch Centrum
  • AbbVie
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Keywords
Gleason score, prostate cancer, deep learning, prostate biopsy, interobserver variability, external validation, benign versus malignant differentiation, urologic pathology, computer-aided diagnosis, recurrence prediction
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Biopsy, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Humans, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Male, Predictive Value of Tests, Prostatic Neoplasms, Retrospective Studies, Reproducibility of Results, Observer Variation, Automation, Laboratory, Neoplasm Grading

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review