Cited by 11AI in cancer detectionRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment

Differentiation among prostate cancer patients with Gleason score of 7 using histopathology image and genomic data

Open access
Qi, Xin, Karagoz, Kubra, Ren, Jian, Foran, David J., Gatza, Michael·2018·Medical Imaging 2018: Imaging Informatics for Healthcare, Research, and Applications

Abstract

Prostate cancer is the most common non-skin related cancer affecting 1 in 7 men in the United States. Treatment of patients with prostate cancer still remains a difficult decision-making process that requires physicians to balance clinical benefits, life expectancy, comorbidities, and treatment-related side effects. Gleason score (a sum of the primary and secondary Gleason patterns) solely based on morphological prostate glandular architecture has shown as one of the best predictors of prostate cancer outcome. Significant progress has been made on molecular subtyping prostate cancer delineated through the increasing use of gene sequencing. Prostate cancer patients with Gleason score of 7 show heterogeneity in recurrence and survival outcomes. Therefore, we propose to assess the correlation between histopathology images and genomic data with disease recurrence in prostate tumors with a Gleason 7 score to identify prognostic markers. In the study, we identify image biomarkers within tissue WSIs by modeling the spatial relationship from automatically created patches as a sequence within WSI by adopting a recurrence network model, namely long short-term memory (LSTM). Our preliminary results demonstrate that integrating image biomarkers from CNN with LSTM and genomic pathway scores, is more strongly correlated with patients recurrence of disease compared to standard clinical markers and engineered image texture features. The study further demonstrates that prostate cancer patients with Gleason score of 4+3 have a higher risk of disease progression and recurrence compared to prostate cancer patients with Gleason score of 3+4.

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 · 10.1117/12.2293193

Cites

34 of 34 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?

  • Integrating image biomarkers from CNN with an LSTM recurrence network model and genomic pathway scores is more strongly correlated with a patient's recurrence of disease compared to standard clinical markers and image-based texture features.

    “The results of the study show that integrating image biomarkers from CNN with a recurrence network model, called long short-term memory LSTM and genomic pathway scores, is more strongly correlated with a patient’s recurrence of disease as compared to using standard clinical markers and image-based texture features [249].”

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

2 of the 36 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Qi, X., Karagoz, K., Ren, J., Foran, D. J., & Gatza, M.
Affiliations
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
Venue
Medical Imaging 2018: Imaging Informatics for Healthcare, Research, and Applications
Publisher
SPIE
Published
2018-03-06
Volume
66
Pages
1
OpenAlex
W2794344266
Cited by
11
References
36
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1
FWCI
0.82
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • SPIE Medical Imaging: Imaging Informatics for Healthcare, Research, and Applications (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Cancer Institute (UG3CA225021, R01CA161375)
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (R01LM009239)
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
prostate cancer, Gleason score 7, recurrence, prognostic factors, whole slide images, long short-term memory, convolutional neural networks, tumor heterogeneity

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