medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
Comparing Gleason Pattern 4 Measurement Approaches on Prostate Biopsy Using Machine Learning: A Proof-of-Principle Study.
СтатьяПрепринтНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Buzoianu Matei M, Yu Rebecca, Assel Melissa, Bozkurt Alican, Aghdam Hamed, Fine Samson W, Vickers Andrew J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the proof of principle that machine learning (ML) can be used to quantify Gleason Pattern (GP) 4 on digitized biopsy slides using multiple measurement approaches, allowing direct comparison of their prognostic performance.
METHODS: We assembled a convenience sample of 726 patients with grade group 2-4 prostate cancer on systematic biopsy who underwent radical prostatectomy between 2014 and 2023. Digitized biopsy slides were analyzed using a machine-learning algorithm (PAIGE-AI) to quantify GP4 using multiple measurement approaches, particularly with respect to how gaps between cancer foci ("interfocal stroma") were handled. GP4 extent was quantified using linear measurements or a pixel-based area metric. Discrimination of each GP4 quantification approach, along with Grade Group (GG), was assessed for adverse radical prostatectomy pathology and biochemical recurrence.
RESULTS: We identified 15 different quantification approaches and observed differences between their discrimination. The highest discrimination was in the pixel-counting method (AUC 0.648). GP4 quantification outperformed GG for predicting adverse pathology (AUC 0.627 vs 0.608). Amount of GP3 was non-predictive once GP4 was known. These findings were consistent for BCR.
CONCLUSIONS: We were able to measure slides using 15 distinct measurement approaches and replicated prior findings using ML to quantify GP4. Our findings support the use of ML as a research tool to compare different GP4 quantification approaches. We intend to use our method on larger cohorts to determine with which measurement approach best predicts oncologic outcome.
METHODS: We assembled a convenience sample of 726 patients with grade group 2-4 prostate cancer on systematic biopsy who underwent radical prostatectomy between 2014 and 2023. Digitized biopsy slides were analyzed using a machine-learning algorithm (PAIGE-AI) to quantify GP4 using multiple measurement approaches, particularly with respect to how gaps between cancer foci ("interfocal stroma") were handled. GP4 extent was quantified using linear measurements or a pixel-based area metric. Discrimination of each GP4 quantification approach, along with Grade Group (GG), was assessed for adverse radical prostatectomy pathology and biochemical recurrence.
RESULTS: We identified 15 different quantification approaches and observed differences between their discrimination. The highest discrimination was in the pixel-counting method (AUC 0.648). GP4 quantification outperformed GG for predicting adverse pathology (AUC 0.627 vs 0.608). Amount of GP3 was non-predictive once GP4 was known. These findings were consistent for BCR.
CONCLUSIONS: We were able to measure slides using 15 distinct measurement approaches and replicated prior findings using ML to quantify GP4. Our findings support the use of ML as a research tool to compare different GP4 quantification approaches. We intend to use our method on larger cohorts to determine with which measurement approach best predicts oncologic outcome.