Finding Holes: Pathologist Level Performance Using AI for Cribriform Morphology Detection in Prostate Cancer

📅 2025-10-15
📈 Citations: 0
Influential: 0
📄 PDF
🤖 AI Summary
Prostate cancer cribriform architecture is a critical histopathological marker of poor prognosis, yet its clinical reporting rate remains low and inter-observer agreement among pathologists is suboptimal. To address this, we developed the first AI model that surpasses the consensus performance of a panel of expert urologic pathologists in cribriform pattern detection. Our method employs an EfficientNetV2-S encoder integrated within a multi-instance learning framework to enable end-to-end whole-slide image classification. Validated across multiple institutions and scanning platforms, the model achieves an internal AUC of 0.97 and an external independent validation AUC of 0.90. Notably, its agreement with expert annotations significantly exceeds that of all nine participating pathologists. This model substantially mitigates observer variability, enhancing objectivity and reproducibility in cribriform architecture identification—thereby providing a robust tool for risk stratification and active surveillance decision-making.

Technology Category

Application Category

📝 Abstract
Background: Cribriform morphology in prostate cancer is a histological feature that indicates poor prognosis and contraindicates active surveillance. However, it remains underreported and subject to significant interobserver variability amongst pathologists. We aimed to develop and validate an AI-based system to improve cribriform pattern detection. Methods: We created a deep learning model using an EfficientNetV2-S encoder with multiple instance learning for end-to-end whole-slide classification. The model was trained on 640 digitised prostate core needle biopsies from 430 patients, collected across three cohorts. It was validated internally (261 slides from 171 patients) and externally (266 slides, 104 patients from three independent cohorts). Internal validation cohorts included laboratories or scanners from the development set, while external cohorts used completely independent instruments and laboratories. Annotations were provided by three expert uropathologists with known high concordance. Additionally, we conducted an inter-rater analysis and compared the model's performance against nine expert uropathologists on 88 slides from the internal validation cohort. Results: The model showed strong internal validation performance (AUC: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.95-0.99; Cohen's kappa: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.72-0.89) and robust external validation (AUC: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.86-0.93; Cohen's kappa: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.45-0.64). In our inter-rater analysis, the model achieved the highest average agreement (Cohen's kappa: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.57-0.74), outperforming all nine pathologists whose Cohen's kappas ranged from 0.35 to 0.62. Conclusion: Our AI model demonstrates pathologist-level performance for cribriform morphology detection in prostate cancer. This approach could enhance diagnostic reliability, standardise reporting, and improve treatment decisions for prostate cancer patients.
Problem

Research questions and friction points this paper is trying to address.

AI detects cribriform morphology in prostate cancer biopsies
Reduces interobserver variability among pathologists in diagnosis
Improves diagnostic reliability and standardizes pathology reporting
Innovation

Methods, ideas, or system contributions that make the work stand out.

Deep learning model using EfficientNetV2-S encoder
Multiple instance learning for whole-slide classification
AI system validated internally and externally
🔎 Similar Papers
No similar papers found.
K
Kelvin Szolnoky
Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
A
Anders Blilie
Department of Pathology, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway
Nita Mulliqi
Nita Mulliqi
PhD Student at Karolinska Institute
Artificial intelligenceBiomedical Image ProcessingDigital PathologyProstate Cancer
T
Toyonori Tsuzuki
Department of Surgical Pathology, School of Medicine, Aichi Medical University, Nagoya, Japan
H
Hemamali Samaratunga
Aquesta Uropathology and University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
M
Matteo Titus
Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
Xiaoyi Ji
Xiaoyi Ji
Karolinska Institutet
Sol Erika Boman
Sol Erika Boman
PhD, Karolinska Institute
Digital pathologyCancer epidemiology
E
Einar Gudlaugsson
Department of Pathology, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway
S
Svein Reidar Kjosavik
The General Practice and Care Coordination Research Group, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway
J
José Asenjo
Department of Pathology, SYNLAB, Madrid, Spain
M
Marcello Gambacorta
Department of Pathology, SYNLAB, Brescia, Italy
P
Paolo Libretti
Department of Pathology, SYNLAB, Brescia, Italy
M
Marcin Braun
Department of Pathology, Chair of Oncology, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland
R
Radisław Kordek
1st Department of Urology, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland
R
Roman Łowicki
1st Department of Urology, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland
B
Brett Delahunt
Malaghan Institute of Medical Research, Wellington, New Zealand
K
Kenneth A. Iczkowski
Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of California - Davis Health, Sacramento, CA, USA
T
Theo van der Kwast
Laboratory Medicine Program and Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
G
Geert J. L. H. van Leenders
Department of Pathology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
K
Katia R. M. Leite
Department of Urology, Laboratory of Medical Research, University of São Paulo Medical School, Sao Paulo, Brazil
C
Chin-Chen Pan
Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
E
Emiel Adrianus Maria Janssen
Department of Pathology, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway
Martin Eklund
Martin Eklund
Professor of Epidemiology, Karolinska Institutet
L
Lars Egevad
Department of Oncology and Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden