Cited by 50AI in cancer detectionRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingBreast Cancer Treatment Studies

Automated Quantification of sTIL Density with H&E-Based Digital Image Analysis Has Prognostic Potential in Triple-Negative Breast Cancers

Open access
Thagaard, Jeppe, Stovgaard, Elisabeth Specht, Vognsen, Line Grove, Hauberg, Søren, Dahl, Anders, Ebstrup, Thomas, Doré, Johan, Vincentz, Rikke Egede +5 more·2021·Cancers

Abstract

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is an aggressive and difficult-to-treat cancer type that represents approximately 15% of all breast cancers. Recently, stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTIL) resurfaced as a strong prognostic biomarker for overall survival (OS) for TNBC patients. Manual assessment has innate limitations that hinder clinical adoption, and the International Immuno-Oncology Biomarker Working Group (TIL-WG) has therefore envisioned that computational assessment of sTIL could overcome these limitations and recommended that any algorithm should follow the manual guidelines where appropriate. However, no existing studies capture all the concepts of the guideline or have shown the same prognostic evidence as manual assessment. In this study, we present a fully automated digital image analysis pipeline and demonstrate that our hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-based pipeline can provide a quantitative and interpretable score that correlates with the manual pathologist-derived sTIL status, and importantly, can stratify a retrospective cohort into two significant distinct prognostic groups. We found our score to be prognostic for OS (HR: 0.81 CI: 0.72–0.92 p = 0.001) independent of age, tumor size, nodal status, and tumor type in statistical modeling. While prior studies have followed fragments of the TIL-WG guideline, our approach is the first to follow all complex aspects, where appropriate, supporting the TIL-WG vision of computational assessment of sTIL in the future clinical setting.

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 · 10.3390/cancers13123050

Cites

58 of 58 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?

  • TME components and their interactions can influence NAC response in patients with TNBC.

    “TME components and their interactions can influence NAC response in patients with TNBC [70–72].”

    From Digital image analysis and machine learning-assisted prediction of neoadjuvant chemotherapy response in triple-negative breast cancer (2024) · cites this paper as [70]

    The Introduction states that immune-system and tumor-microenvironment interactions play a role in clinical outcomes for patients with TNBC. It does not specifically link those interactions to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) response; the Methods (§2.1) say patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy were excluded. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

1 of the 59 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [36]Chen L.-C. Papandreou G. Schroff F. Adam H. Rethinking atrous convolution for semantic image segmentation arXiv 2017 1706.05587

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Thagaard, J., Stovgaard, E. S., Vognsen, L. G., Hauberg, S., Dahl, A., Ebstrup, T., Doré, J., Vincentz, R. E., Jepsen, R. K., Roslind, A., Kümler, I., Nielsen, D., & Balslev, E.
Affiliations
  • Technical University of Denmark (DK)
  • Herlev Hospital (DK)
  • Visiopharm A/S, 2970 Hørsholm, Denmark
Corresponding author
Thagaard, Jeppe
Venue
Cancers
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2021-06-18
Volume
13
Issue
12
Pages
3050
ISSN
2072-6694 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3176612188
Cited by
50
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 7
FWCI
2.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cancers (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Technical University of Denmark, DTU Orbit (Technical University of Denmark, DTU) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Innovationsfonden (8053-00008B)
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
triple-negative breast cancer, stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, prognostic factors, overall survival, computational pathology, prognostic stratification

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