Comparison of machine learning to deep learning for automated annotation of Gleason patterns in whole mount prostate cancer histology.

BackgroundOne in eight men will be affected by prostate cancer (PCa) in their lives. While the current clinical standard prognostic marker for PCa is the Gleason score, it is subject to interreviewer variability. This study compares two machine learning methods for discriminating between high- and low-grade PCa on histology from 47 PCa patients. MethodsDigitized slides were annotated by a GU fellowship-trained pathologist. High-resolution tiles were extracted from annotated and unlabeled tissue. Glands were segmented and pathomic features were calculated and averaged across each patient. Patients were separated into a training set of 31 patients (Cohort A, n=9345 tiles) and a testing cohort of 16 patients (Cohort B, n=4375 tiles). Tiles from Cohort A were used to train a compact classification ensemble model and a ResNet model to discriminate tumor and were compared to pathologist annotations. ResultsThe ensemble and ResNet models had overall accuracies of 89% and 88%, respectively. The ResNet model was additionally able to differentiate Gleason patterns on data from Cohort B while the ensemble model was not. ConclusionsOur results suggest that quantitative pathomic features calculated from PCa histology can distinguish regions of cancer; how-ever, texture features captured by deep learning frameworks better differentiate unique Gleason patterns.