Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 662

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Pan-cancer image-based detection of clinically actionable genetic alterations

Open access
Kather, Jakob Nikolas, Heij, Lara R., Grabsch, Heike I., Loeffler, Chiara, Echle, Amelie, Muti, Hannah Sophie, Krause, Jeremias, Niehues, Jan M., Sommer, Kai A. J., Bankhead, Peter, Kooreman, Loes F. S., Schulte, Jefree J., Cipriani, Nicole A., Buelow, Roman D., Boor, Peter, Ortiz-Brüchle, Nadina, Hanby, Andrew M., Speirs, Valerie, Kochanny, Sara, Patnaik, Akash, Srisuwananukorn, Andrew, Brenner, Hermann, Hoffmeister, Michael, van den Brandt, Piet A., Jäger, Dirk, Trautwein, Christian, Pearson, Alexander T., Luedde, Tom·2020·Nature Cancer
DOI 10.1038/s43018-020-0087-6

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Molecular alterations in cancer can cause phenotypic changes in tumor cells and their micro-environment. Routine histopathology tissue slides - which are ubiquitously available - can reflect such morphological changes. Here, we show that deep learning can consistently infer a wide range of genetic mutations, molecular tumor subtypes, gene expression signatures and standard pathology biomarkers directly from routine histology. We developed, optimized, validated and publicly released a one-stop-shop workflow and applied it to tissue slides of more than 5000 patients across multiple solid tumors. Our findings show that a single deep learning algorithm can be trained to predict a wide range of molecular alterations from routine, paraffin-embedded histology slides stained with hematoxylin and eosin. These predictions generalize to other populations and are spatially resolved. Our method can be implemented on mobile hardware, potentially enabling point-of-care diagnostics for personalized cancer treatment. More generally, this approach could elucidate and quantify genotype-phenotype links in cancer.

Overview

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/s43018-020-0087-6

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 24 references

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. Cheng, M. L., Berger, M. F., Hyman, D. M. & Solit, D. B. Clinical tumour sequencing for precision oncology: time for a universal strategy. Nat. Rev. Cancer 18, 527–528 (2018). · DOI
  2. Rusch, M. et al. Clinical cancer genomic profiling by three-platform sequencing of whole genome, whole exome and transcriptome. Nat. Commun. 9, 3962 (2018). · DOI
  3. Kather, J. N., Halama, N. & Jaeger, D. Genomics and emerging biomarkers for immunotherapy of colorectal cancer. Semin. Cancer Biol. 52, 189–197 (2018). · DOI
  4. Guinney, J. et al. The consensus molecular subtypes of colorectal cancer. Nat. Med. 21, 1350–1356 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  5. Fontana, E., Eason, K., Cervantes, A., Salazar, R. & Sadanandam, A. Context matters—consensus molecular subtypes of colorectal cancer as biomarkers for clinical trials. Ann. Oncol. 30, 520–527 (2019). · DOI
  6. Shia, J. et al. Morphological characterization of colorectal cancers in The Cancer Genome Atlas reveals distinct morphology–molecular associations: clinical and biological implications. Modern Pathol. 30, 599–609 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  7. Schaumberg, A. J., Rubin, M. A. & Fuchs, T. J. H&E-stained whole slide image deep learning predicts SPOP mutation state in prostate cancer. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/064279 (2018). · DOI
  8. Kather, J. N. et al. Deep learning detects virus presence in cancer histology. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/690206 (2019). · DOI
  9. Zhang, H. et al. Predicting tumor mutational burden from liver cancer pathological images using convolutional neural network. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM) 920–925 (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 2019); https://doi.org/10.1109/BIBM47256.2019.8983139 · DOI
  10. Campanella, G. et al. Clinical-grade computational pathology using weakly supervised deep learning on whole slide images. Nat. Med. 25, 1301–1309 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  11. Zhang, X., Zhou, X., Lin, M. & Sun, J. ShuffleNet: an extremely efficient convolutional neural network for mobile devices. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition 6848–6856 (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 2018); https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2018.00716 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Chen, P. C. et al. An augmented reality microscope with real-time artificial intelligence integration for cancer diagnosis. Nat. Med. 25, 1453–1457 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  13. Fukamachi, H. et al. A subset of diffuse-type gastric cancer is susceptible to mTOR inhibitors and checkpoint inhibitors. J. Exp. Clin. Cancer Res. 38, 127 (2019). · DOI
  14. Xue, Z. et al. MAP3K1 and MAP2K4 mutations are associated with sensitivity to MEK inhibitors in multiple cancer models. Cell Res. 28, 719–729 (2018). · DOI
  15. Khalaf, A. M. et al. Role of Wnt/β-catenin signaling in hepatocellular carcinoma, pathogenesis, and clinical significance. J. Hepatocell. Carcinoma 5, 61–73 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  16. Davis, C. F. et al. The somatic genomic landscape of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma. Cancer Cell 26, 319–330 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  17. The Cancer Genome Atlas Network. Comprehensive genomic characterization of head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. Nature 517, 576–582 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  18. Li, C., Egloff, A. M., Sen, M., Grandis, J. R. & Johnson, D. E. Caspase-8 mutations in head and neck cancer confer resistance to death receptor-mediated apoptosis and enhance migration, invasion, and tumor growth. Mol. Oncol. 8, 1220–1230 (2014). · DOI
  19. Burk, R. D. et al. Integrated genomic and molecular characterization of cervical cancer. Nature 543, 378–384 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  20. Thorsson, V. et al. The immune landscape of cancer. Immunity 48, 812–830.e14 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  21. Liu, Y. et al. Comparative molecular analysis of gastrointestinal adenocarcinomas. Cancer Cell 33, 721–735.e8 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  22. Barresi, V., Bonetti, L. R. & Bettelli, S. KRAS, NRAS, BRAF mutations and high counts of poorly differentiated clusters of neoplastic cells in colorectal cancer: observational analysis of 175 cases. Pathology 47, 551–556 (2015). · DOI
  23. Hoffmeister, M. et al. Statin use and survival after colorectal cancer: the importance of comprehensive confounder adjustment. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 107, djv045 (2015). · DOI
  24. Brenner, H., Chang-Claude, J., Seiler, C. M. & Hoffmeister, M. Long-term risk of colorectal cancer after negative colonoscopy. J. Clin. Oncol. 29, 3761–3767 (2011). · DOI
  25. Gao, J. et al. Integrative analysis of complex cancer genomics and clinical profiles using the cBioPortal. Sci. Signal 6, pl1 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  26. Berger, A. C. et al. A comprehensive pan-cancer molecular study of gynecologic and breast cancers. Cancer Cell 33, 690–705.e9 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  27. Bianconi, F., Kather, J. N. & Reyes-Aldasoro, C. C. Evaluation of colour pre-processing on patch-based classification of H&E-stained images. In European Congress on Digital Pathology (eds. Reyes-Aldasoro, C. et al.) 56–64 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science Volume 11435, Springer, 2019). · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Kather, J. N., Heij, L. R., Grabsch, H. I., Loeffler, C., Echle, A., Muti, H. S., Krause, J., Niehues, J. M., Sommer, K. A. J., Bankhead, P., Kooreman, L. F. S., Schulte, J. J., Cipriani, N. A., Buelow, R. D., Boor, P., Ortiz-Brüchle, N., Hanby, A. M., Speirs, V., Kochanny, S., Patnaik, A., Srisuwananukorn, A., Brenner, H., Hoffmeister, M., van den Brandt, P. A., Jäger, D., Trautwein, C., Pearson, A. T., & Luedde, T.
Venue
Nature Cancer
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2020-07-27
Volume
1
Issue
8
Pages
789-799
ISSN
2662-1347 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/s43018-020-0087-6
OpenAlex
W3044996171
Cited by
662
References
24
FWCI
32.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
correction (2020-11-03)
Open access
hybrid
Licence

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.