Predicting Prostate Cancer-Specific Mortality with A.I.-based Gleason Grading

November 25, 2020 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› Communications Medicine

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Ellery Wulczyn, Kunal Nagpal, Matthew Symonds, Melissa Moran, Markus Plass, Robert Reihs, Farah Nader, Fraser Tan, Yuannan Cai, Trissia Brown, Isabelle Flament-Auvigne, Mahul B. Amin, Martin C. Stumpe, Heimo Muller, Peter Regitnig, Andreas Holzinger, Greg S. Corrado, Lily H. Peng, Po-Hsuan Cameron Chen, David F. Steiner, Kurt Zatloukal, Yun Liu, Craig H. Mermel arXiv ID 2012.05197 Category cs.CV: Computer Vision Cross-listed cs.LG Citations 41 Venue Communications Medicine Last Checked 6 months ago
Abstract
Gleason grading of prostate cancer is an important prognostic factor but suffers from poor reproducibility, particularly among non-subspecialist pathologists. Although artificial intelligence (A.I.) tools have demonstrated Gleason grading on-par with expert pathologists, it remains an open question whether A.I. grading translates to better prognostication. In this study, we developed a system to predict prostate-cancer specific mortality via A.I.-based Gleason grading and subsequently evaluated its ability to risk-stratify patients on an independent retrospective cohort of 2,807 prostatectomy cases from a single European center with 5-25 years of follow-up (median: 13, interquartile range 9-17). The A.I.'s risk scores produced a C-index of 0.84 (95%CI 0.80-0.87) for prostate cancer-specific mortality. Upon discretizing these risk scores into risk groups analogous to pathologist Grade Groups (GG), the A.I. had a C-index of 0.82 (95%CI 0.78-0.85). On the subset of cases with a GG in the original pathology report (n=1,517), the A.I.'s C-indices were 0.87 and 0.85 for continuous and discrete grading, respectively, compared to 0.79 (95%CI 0.71-0.86) for GG obtained from the reports. These represent improvements of 0.08 (95%CI 0.01-0.15) and 0.07 (95%CI 0.00-0.14) respectively. Our results suggest that A.I.-based Gleason grading can lead to effective risk-stratification and warrants further evaluation for improving disease management.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Computer Vision

πŸŒ… πŸŒ… Old Age

Fast R-CNN

Ross Girshick

cs.CV πŸ› ICCV πŸ“š 27.7K cites 11 years ago

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted