Cited by 1,082AI in cancer detectionRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection

Predicting survival from colorectal cancer histology slides using deep learning: A retrospective multicenter study

Open access
Kather, Jakob Nikolas, Krisam, Johannes, Charoentong, Pornpimol, Luedde, Tom, Herpel, Esther, Weis, Cleo-Aron, Gaiser, Timo, Marx, Alexander +10 more·2019·PLOS Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: For virtually every patient with colorectal cancer (CRC), hematoxylin-eosin (HE)-stained tissue slides are available. These images contain quantitative information, which is not routinely used to objectively extract prognostic biomarkers. In the present study, we investigated whether deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) can extract prognosticators directly from these widely available images. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We hand-delineated single-tissue regions in 86 CRC tissue slides, yielding more than 100,000 HE image patches, and used these to train a CNN by transfer learning, reaching a nine-class accuracy of >94% in an independent data set of 7,180 images from 25 CRC patients. With this tool, we performed automated tissue decomposition of representative multitissue HE images from 862 HE slides in 500 stage I-IV CRC patients in the The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) cohort, a large international multicenter collection of CRC tissue. Based on the output neuron activations in the CNN, we calculated a "deep stroma score," which was an independent prognostic factor for overall survival (OS) in a multivariable Cox proportional hazard model (hazard ratio [HR] with 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.99 [1.27-3.12], p = 0.0028), while in the same cohort, manual quantification of stromal areas and a gene expression signature of cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) were only prognostic in specific tumor stages. We validated these findings in an independent cohort of 409 stage I-IV CRC patients from the "Darmkrebs: Chancen der Verhütung durch Screening" (DACHS) study who were recruited between 2003 and 2007 in multiple institutions in Germany. Again, the score was an independent prognostic factor for OS (HR 1.63 [1.14-2.33], p = 0.008), CRC-specific OS (HR 2.29 [1.5-3.48], p = 0.0004), and relapse-free survival (RFS; HR 1.92 [1.34-2.76], p = 0.0004). A prospective validation is required before this biomarker can be implemented in clinical workflows. CONCLUSIONS: In our retrospective study, we show that a CNN can assess the human tumor microenvironment and predict prognosis directly from histopathological images.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002730

Cites

52 of 52 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?

  • Loki Annotate was applied to four benchmark histopathology datasets including CRC7K (eight tissue types), WSSS-4LUAD (normal and tumor), PatchCamelyon (normal and tumor) and LC25000 (benign and malignant).

    “We applied Loki Annotate to four benchmark histopathology datasets including CRC7K41 (eight tissue types), WSSS-4LUAD42 (normal and tumor), PatchCamelyon43 (normal and tumor) and LC2500044 (benign and malignant).”
  • Prognostic AI models for colorectal cancer have been developed for MRI, histopathology, and multiplex imaging.

    “Prognostic AI models for colorectal cancer have been developed for various data modalities, including MRI (88), histopathology (89-91), and multiplex imaging (92,93).”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kather, J. N., Krisam, J., Charoentong, P., Luedde, T., Herpel, E., Weis, C.-A., Gaiser, T., Marx, A., Valous, N. A., Ferber, D., Jansen, L., Reyes-Aldasoro, C. C., Zörnig, I., Jäger, D., Brenner, H., Chang-Claude, J., Hoffmeister, M., & Halama, N.
Affiliations
  • German Cancer Research Center (DE)
  • University Hospital Heidelberg (DE)
  • Universitätsklinikum Aachen (DE)
  • Heidelberg University (DE)
  • University Medical Centre Mannheim (DE)
Corresponding author
Kather, Jakob Nikolas
Venue
PLOS Medicine
Published
2019-01-24
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
e1002730
ISSN
  • 1549-1277 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-1676
OpenAlex
W2914568698
Cited by
1,082
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 158 · 2025: 164 · 2024: 180 · 2023: 170 · 2022: 175 · 2021: 129 · 2020: 87 · 2019: 17 · 2014: 1
FWCI
46.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • City Research Online (City University London) (acceptedVersion)
  • RWTH Publications (RWTH Aachen) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RWTH Publications (RWTH Aachen)
Funders
  • Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum (Heidelberg School of Oncology)
  • Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (13GW0091E, 01ER0814, 01ER0815, 01ER1505A, 01ER1505B)
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (BR 1704/6-1, BR 1704/6-3, BR 1704/6-4, BR 1704/17-1, CH 117/1-1, and HO 5117/2-1)
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 › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Keywords
colorectal cancer, deep convolutional neural networks, tumor stroma, prognostic factors, overall survival, cancer-associated fibroblasts, cancer of unknown primary, relapse-free survival, TCGA, transfer learning, histopathology image analysis, digital pathology
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Colon, Coloring Agents, Eosine Yellowish-(YS), Female, Hematoxylin, Humans, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Male, Prognosis, Rectum, Retrospective Studies, Colorectal Neoplasms

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