Back

Development and validation of a digital pathology artificial intelligence (DPAI)-based biomarker predicting risk of Gleason grade group reclassification for patients who are candidates for active surveillance

Mabey, B.; Lenz, L. H.; Schiewer, M. J.; Rayford, W.; Muhammad, H.; Huang, W.; Finch, R.; Nakamoto, C.; Kouros-Mehr, H.; Jasper, J.; Basu, H.; Feng, C.; Sharma, A.; Wilding, G.; Roy, R.; Muzzey, D.; Gutin, A.

2026-05-20 oncology
10.64898/2026.05.15.26353328 medRxiv
Show abstract

Aims Active surveillance (AS) allows selected men with localized prostate cancer to defer curative therapy and reduce treatment morbidity. Conversion from AS to treatment is commonly triggered by Gleason grade group (GGG) upgrading on confirmatory biopsy. We developed and validated a digital pathology artificial intelligence (DPAI) biomarker to predict GGG upgrading in AS-eligible patients. Materials & Methods The DPAI model was trained using histopathology image features from diagnostic biopsies of 998 patients and validated in an independent cohort of 296 patients meeting criteria for AS. Logistic regression estimated the probability of confirmatory-biopsy GGG increase, and feature selection identified the most predictive variables. Results AI-GUR (Artificial Intelligence-Gleason Upgrade Risk) predicted GGG reclassification at confirmatory biopsy (OR 1.60; p=0.0003), and provided information beyond conventional stratification (risk group, CAPRA) and cribriform morphology (all p<0.01). Predicted risks were similar across time from diagnosis (~10-15% to ~85% at 1, 1.5, or 2 years; p for time=0.50), consistent with initial biopsy mischaracterization rather than time-dependent progression. Conclusions AI-GUR provides individualized estimates of confirmatory-biopsy GGG upgrading for AS candidates. Using DPAI may improve shared decision-making by complementing standard clinicopathologic tools and molecular testing using the same biopsy specimen, while informing the likelihood of grade upgrade at confirmation.

Matching journals

The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
The Prostate
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.8%
2
British Journal of Cancer
49 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.8%
3
International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.7%
4
Clinical Cancer Research
64 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.7%
5
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
5.5%
6
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 30%
5.1%
7
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 21%
4.8%
8
Frontiers in Oncology
103 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
4.3%
9
Journal of Translational Medicine
57 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.2%
50% of probability mass above
10
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.8%
11
Modern Pathology
22 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.4%
12
Cancers
213 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
13
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 40%
2.4%
14
BMC Cancer
67 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
15
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 9%
2.1%
16
Diagnostics
50 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
2.0%
17
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.7%
18
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
20 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.5%
19
npj Precision Oncology
53 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.5%
20
Cancer Medicine
26 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.4%
21
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
22
JCO Precision Oncology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
23
Biology
45 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.1%
24
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2444 papers in training set
Top 37%
1.1%
25
The Journal of Pathology
26 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.0%
26
Laboratory Investigation
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.0%
27
European Journal of Cancer
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
28
JNCI Cancer Spectrum
10 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
29
PLOS Genetics
862 papers in training set
Top 11%
1.0%
30
Biology Methods and Protocols
61 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%