npj Precision Oncology (May 2021)

Computer extracted gland features from H&E predicts prostate cancer recurrence comparably to a genomic companion diagnostic test: a large multi-site study

  • Patrick Leo,
  • Andrew Janowczyk,
  • Robin Elliott,
  • Nafiseh Janaki,
  • Kaustav Bera,
  • Rakesh Shiradkar,
  • Xavier Farré,
  • Pingfu Fu,
  • Ayah El-Fahmawi,
  • Mohammed Shahait,
  • Jessica Kim,
  • David Lee,
  • Kosj Yamoah,
  • Timothy R. Rebbeck,
  • Francesca Khani,
  • Brian D. Robinson,
  • Lauri Eklund,
  • Ivan Jambor,
  • Harri Merisaari,
  • Otto Ettala,
  • Pekka Taimen,
  • Hannu J. Aronen,
  • Peter J. Boström,
  • Ashutosh Tewari,
  • Cristina Magi-Galluzzi,
  • Eric Klein,
  • Andrei Purysko,
  • Natalie NC Shih,
  • Michael Feldman,
  • Sanjay Gupta,
  • Priti Lal,
  • Anant Madabhushi

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41698-021-00174-3
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 5, no. 1
pp. 1 – 11

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Existing tools for post-radical prostatectomy (RP) prostate cancer biochemical recurrence (BCR) prognosis rely on human pathologist-derived parameters such as tumor grade, with the resulting inter-reviewer variability. Genomic companion diagnostic tests such as Decipher tend to be tissue destructive, expensive, and not routinely available in most centers. We present a tissue non-destructive method for automated BCR prognosis, termed "Histotyping", that employs computational image analysis of morphologic patterns of prostate tissue from a single, routinely acquired hematoxylin and eosin slide. Patients from two institutions (n = 214) were used to train Histotyping for identifying high-risk patients based on six features of glandular morphology extracted from RP specimens. Histotyping was validated for post-RP BCR prognosis on a separate set of n = 675 patients from five institutions and compared against Decipher on n = 167 patients. Histotyping was prognostic of BCR in the validation set (p < 0.001, univariable hazard ratio [HR] = 2.83, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.03–3.93, concordance index [c-index] = 0.68, median years-to-BCR: 1.7). Histotyping was also prognostic in clinically stratified subsets, such as patients with Gleason grade group 3 (HR = 4.09) and negative surgical margins (HR = 3.26). Histotyping was prognostic independent of grade group, margin status, pathological stage, and preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) (multivariable p < 0.001, HR = 2.09, 95% CI: 1.40–3.10, n = 648). The combination of Histotyping, grade group, and preoperative PSA outperformed Decipher (c-index = 0.75 vs. 0.70, n = 167). These results suggest that a prognostic classifier for prostate cancer based on digital images could serve as an alternative or complement to molecular-based companion diagnostic tests.