4.7 Article

Signature maps for automatic identification of prostate cancer from colorimetric analysis of H&E- and IHC-stained histopathological specimens

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 9, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-43486-y

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01-CA1155268, P41-EB015894, T32-GM008244, TL1-R002493, UL1-TR002494]
  2. U.S. Department of Defense [W81XWH-15-1-0477]
  3. University of Minnesota Graduate School Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Prostate cancer (PCa) is a major cause of cancer death among men. The histopathological examination of post-surgical prostate specimens and manual annotation of PCa not only allow for detailed assessment of disease characteristics and extent, but also supply the ground truth for developing of computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) systems for PCa detection before definitive treatment. As manual cancer annotation is tedious and subjective, there have been a number of publications describing methods for automating the procedure via the analysis of digitized whole-slide images (WSIs). However, these studies have focused only on the analysis of WSIs stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E), even though there is additional information that could be obtained from immunohistochemical (INC) staining. In this work, we propose a framework for automating the annotation of PCa that is based on automated colorimetric analysis of both H&E and IHC WSIs stained with a triple-antibody cocktail against high-molecular weight cytokeratin (HMWCK), p63, and alpha-methylacyl CoA racemase (AMACR). The analysis outputs were then used to train a regression model to estimate the distribution of cancerous epithelium within slides. The approach yielded an AUC of 0.951, sensitivity of 87.1%, and specificity of 90.7% as compared to slide-level annotations, and generalized well to cancers of all grades.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available