Cited by 544AI in cancer detectionOccupational and environmental lung diseasesRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging

Deep learning-based classification of mesothelioma improves prediction of patient outcome

Courtiol, Pierre, Maussion, Charles, Moarii, Matahi, Pronier, Elodie, Pilcer, Samuel, Sefta, Meriem, Manceron, Pierre, Toldo, Sylvain +9 more·2019·Nature Medicine

Abstract

Malignant mesothelioma (MM) is an aggressive cancer primarily diagnosed on the basis of histological criteria 1. The 2015 World Health Organization classification subdivides mesothelioma tumors into three histological types: epithelioid, biphasic and sarcomatoid MM. MM is a highly complex and heterogeneous disease, rendering its diagnosis and histological typing difficult and leading to suboptimal patient care and decisions regarding treatment modalities 2. Here we have developed a new approach-based on deep convolutional neural networks-called MesoNet to accurately predict the overall survival of mesothelioma patients from whole-slide digitized images, without any pathologist-provided locally annotated regions. We validated MesoNet on both an internal validation cohort from the French MESOBANK and an independent cohort from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). We also demonstrated that the model was more accurate in predicting patient survival than using current pathology practices. Furthermore, unlike classical black-box deep learning methods, MesoNet identified regions contributing to patient outcome prediction. Strikingly, we found that these regions are mainly located in the stroma and are histological features associated with inflammation, cellular diversity and vacuolization. These findings suggest that deep learning models can identify new features predictive of patient survival and potentially lead to new biomarker discoveries.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41591-019-0583-3

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 44 · Cited by 544

Authors
Courtiol, P., Maussion, C., Moarii, M., Pronier, E., Pilcer, S., Sefta, M., Manceron, P., Toldo, S., Zaslavskiy, M., Le Stang, N., Girard, N., Elemento, O., Nicholson, A. G., Blay, J.-Y., Galateau-Sallé, F., Wainrib, G., & Clozel, T.
Affiliations
  • Lyon 1 Université (FR)
  • Weill Cornell Medicine (US)
  • Royal Brompton & Harefield NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Centre Léon Bérard (FR)
Venue
Nature Medicine
Published
2019-10
Volume
25
Issue
10
Pages
1519-1525
ISSN
  • 1078-8956 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-170X
OpenAlex
W2978882452
Cited by
544
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 52 · 2025: 62 · 2024: 85 · 2023: 111 · 2022: 106 · 2021: 88 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 2 · 2014: 1
FWCI
27.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Occupational and environmental lung diseases
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Keywords
malignant mesothelioma, histological classification, epithelioid mesothelioma, biphasic mesothelioma, sarcomatoid mesothelioma, whole slide images, deep convolutional neural networks, mesonets, overall survival prediction, stroma, inflammation, vacuolization, cellular diversity, histological biomarkers, TCGA
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Mesothelioma, Malignant, Female, Humans, Lung Neoplasms, Male, Mesothelioma, Prognosis, Neural Networks, Computer, 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