Academic Unit for Translational Medical Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom; Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Suez Canal University, Egypt.
Tissue Image Analytics Centre, University of Warwick, United Kingdom.
Mod Pathol. 2024 Mar;37(3):100416. doi: 10.1016/j.modpat.2023.100416. Epub 2023 Dec 27.
In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) has demonstrated exceptional performance in mitosis identification and quantification. However, the implementation of AI in clinical practice needs to be evaluated against the existing methods. This study is aimed at assessing the optimal method of using AI-based mitotic figure scoring in breast cancer (BC). We utilized whole slide images from a large cohort of BC with extended follow-up comprising a discovery (n = 1715) and a validation (n = 859) set (Nottingham cohort). The Cancer Genome Atlas of breast invasive carcinoma (TCGA-BRCA) cohort (n = 757) was used as an external test set. Employing automated mitosis detection, the mitotic count was assessed using 3 different methods, the mitotic count per tumor area (MCT; calculated by dividing the number of mitotic figures by the total tumor area), the mitotic index (MI; defined as the average number of mitotic figures per 1000 malignant cells), and the mitotic activity index (MAI; defined as the number of mitotic figures in 3 mm area within the mitotic hotspot). These automated metrics were evaluated and compared based on their correlation with the well-established visual scoring method of the Nottingham grading system and Ki67 score, clinicopathologic parameters, and patient outcomes. AI-based mitotic scores derived from the 3 methods (MCT, MI, and MAI) were significantly correlated with the clinicopathologic characteristics and patient survival (P < .001). However, the mitotic counts and the derived cutoffs varied significantly between the 3 methods. Only MAI and MCT were positively correlated with the gold standard visual scoring method used in Nottingham grading system (r = 0.8 and r = 0.7, respectively) and Ki67 scores (r = 0.69 and r = 0.55, respectively), and MAI was the only independent predictor of survival (P < .05) in multivariate Cox regression analysis. For clinical applications, the optimum method of scoring mitosis using AI needs to be considered. MAI can provide reliable and reproducible results and can accurately quantify mitotic figures in BC.
近年来,人工智能(AI)在有丝分裂的识别和定量方面表现出色。然而,在临床实践中实施 AI 需要与现有方法进行评估。本研究旨在评估在乳腺癌(BC)中使用基于 AI 的有丝分裂分数的最佳方法。我们利用了来自大 BC 队列的全切片图像,该队列具有扩展的随访,包括发现(n=1715)和验证(n=859)集(诺丁汉队列)。癌症基因组图谱的乳腺浸润性癌(TCGA-BRCA)队列(n=757)被用作外部测试集。使用自动有丝分裂检测,通过 3 种不同的方法评估有丝分裂计数,肿瘤面积有丝分裂计数(MCT;通过将有丝分裂图的数量除以总肿瘤面积来计算)、有丝分裂指数(MI;定义为每 1000 个恶性细胞的平均有丝分裂图数量)和有丝分裂活性指数(MAI;定义为有丝分裂热点内 3mm 区域内的有丝分裂图数量)。基于与诺丁汉分级系统和 Ki67 评分、临床病理参数和患者结局的良好关联,评估和比较了这些自动化指标。从 3 种方法(MCT、MI 和 MAI)获得的基于 AI 的有丝分裂评分与临床病理特征和患者生存显著相关(P<0.001)。然而,有丝分裂计数和衍生的截止值在 3 种方法之间差异显著。只有 MAI 和 MCT 与诺丁汉分级系统中使用的金标准视觉评分方法(r=0.8 和 r=0.7)和 Ki67 评分(r=0.69 和 r=0.55)呈正相关,并且 MAI 是多变量 Cox 回归分析中唯一的生存独立预测因子(P<0.05)。对于临床应用,需要考虑使用 AI 评分有丝分裂的最佳方法。MAI 可以提供可靠和可重复的结果,并可以准确量化 BC 中的有丝分裂图。