Cited by 327AI in cancer detectionRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingBreast Cancer Treatment Studies

Image analysis with deep learning to predict breast cancer grade, ER status, histologic subtype, and intrinsic subtype

Open access
Couture, Heather D., Williams, Lindsay A., Geradts, Joseph, Nyante, Sarah J., Butler, Ebonee N., Marron, J. S., Perou, Charles M., Troester, Melissa A. +1 more·2018·npj Breast Cancer

Abstract

Abstract RNA-based, multi-gene molecular assays are available and widely used for patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative breast cancers. However, RNA-based genomic tests can be costly and are not available in many countries. Methods for inferring molecular subtype from histologic images may identify patients most likely to benefit from further genomic testing. To identify patients who could benefit from molecular testing based on H&E stained histologic images, we developed an image analysis approach using deep learning. A training set of 571 breast tumors was used to create image-based classifiers for tumor grade, ER status, PAM50 intrinsic subtype, histologic subtype, and risk of recurrence score (ROR-PT). The resulting classifiers were applied to an independent test set ( n = 288), and accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of each was assessed on the test set. Histologic image analysis with deep learning distinguished low-intermediate vs. high tumor grade (82% accuracy), ER status (84% accuracy), Basal-like vs. non-Basal-like (77% accuracy), Ductal vs. Lobular (94% accuracy), and high vs. low-medium ROR-PT score (75% accuracy). Sampling considerations in the training set minimized bias in the test set. Incorrect classification of ER status was significantly more common for Luminal B tumors. These data provide proof of principle that molecular marker status, including a critical clinical biomarker (i.e., ER status), can be predicted with accuracy >75% based on H&E features. Image-based methods could be promising for identifying patients with a greater need for further genomic testing, or in place of classically scored variables typically accomplished using human-based scoring.

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 · 10.1038/s41523-018-0079-1

Cites

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?

  • Groups have reported deep learning for breast cancer diagnosis and subtyping from H&E slides and for quantifying features such as mitotic cell counting.

    “groups have reported on the use of deep learning for breast cancer diagnosis and subtyping from H&E slides (49)(50)(51), and quantifying other clinically relevant features such as mitotic cell counting (52,53).”

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 41 · Cited by 327

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [24]Rosen, P. P. Rosen’s Breast Pathology. Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia (2009).
  2. [28]Allott EH Performance of three-biomarker immunohistochemistry for intrinsic breast cancer subtyping in the AMBER consortium Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2016 25 470 478 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0874 PMC4779705 26711328 · DOI
  3. [34]Simonyan, K. & Zisserman, A. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. in International Conference on Learning Representations, San Diego, California (2015).

Authors
Couture, H. D., Williams, L. A., Geradts, J., Nyante, S. J., Butler, E. N., Marron, J. S., Perou, C. M., Troester, M. A., & Niethammer, M.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Couture, Heather D.
Venue
npj Breast Cancer
Published
2018-09-03
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
30-30
ISSN
2374-4677 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2889089723
Cited by
327
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 60 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 1
FWCI
13.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • npj Breast Cancer (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • UNC Libraries
Funders
  • Breast Cancer Research Foundation
  • Nvidia (Tesla K40)
  • National Cancer Institute (U01CA179715, CA179715, CA148761, CA-58223, P50 CA 58223, P50CA058223, R01CA148761)
  • Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (LCCC2017T204)
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
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Breast Cancer Treatment Studies
Keywords
breast cancer, deep learning, tumor grade prediction, estrogen receptor status, PAM50 molecular subtypes, histological subtypes, recurrence risk score, HER2-negative breast cancer, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer, basal-like breast cancer, luminal B, H&E staining

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