Predicting Prostate Cancer-Specific Mortality with A.I.-based Gleason Grading
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
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 p…
▽ More
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.
△ Less
Submitted 24 November, 2020;
originally announced December 2020.
