Computer-assisted mitotic count using a deep learning-based algorithm improves interobserver reproducibility and accuracy

The mitotic count (MC) is an important histological parameter for prognostication of malignant neoplasms. However, it has inter- and intraobserver discrepancies due to difficulties in selecting the region of interest (MC-ROI) and in identifying or classifying mitotic figures (MFs). Recent progress in the field of artificial intelligence has allowed the development of high-performance algorithms that may improve standardization of the MC. As algorithmic predictions are not flawless, computer-assisted review by pathologists may ensure reliability. In the present study, we compared partial (MC-ROI preselection) and full (additional visualization of MF candidates and display of algorithmic confidence values) computer-assisted MC analysis to the routine (unaided) MC analysis by 23 pathologists for whole-slide images of 50 canine cutaneous mast cell tumors (ccMCTs). Algorithmic predictions aimed to assist pathologists in detecting mitotic hotspot locations, reducing omission of MFs, and improving classification against imposters. The interobserver consistency for the MC significantly increased with computer assistance (interobserver correlation coefficient, ICC = 0.92) compared to the unaided approach (ICC = 0.70). Classification into prognostic stratifications had a higher accuracy with computer assistance. The algorithmically preselected hotspot MC-ROIs had a consistently higher MCs than the manually selected MC-ROIs. Compared to a ground truth (developed with immunohistochemistry for phosphohistone H3), pathologist performance in detecting individual MF was augmented when using computer assistance (F1-score of 0.68 increased to 0.79) with a reduction in false negatives by 38%. The results of this study demonstrate that computer assistance may lead to more reproducible and accurate MCs in ccMCTs

Mitosis domain generalization in histopathology images - The MIDOG challenge

The density of mitotic figures (MF) within tumor tissue is known to be highly correlated with tumor proliferation and thus is an important marker in tumor grading. Recognition of MF by pathologists is subject to a strong inter-rater bias, limiting its prognostic value. State-of-the-art deep learning methods can support experts but have been observed to strongly deteriorate when applied in a different clinical environment. The variability caused by using different whole slide scanners has been identified as one decisive component in the underlying domain shift. The goal of the MICCAI MIDOG 2021 challenge was the creation of scanner-agnostic MF detection algorithms. The challenge used a training set of 200 cases, split across four scanning systems. As test set, an additional 100 cases split across four scanning systems, including two previously unseen scanners, were provided. In this paper, we evaluate and compare the approaches that were submitted to the challenge and identify methodological factors contributing to better performance. The winning algorithm yielded an F(1) score of 0.748 (CI95: 0.704-0.781), exceeding the performance of six experts on the same task

Mitosis domain generalization in histopathology images — The MIDOG challenge

The density of mitotic figures (MF) within tumor tissue is known to be highly correlated with tumor proliferation and thus is an important marker in tumor grading. Recognition of MF by pathologists is subject to a strong inter-rater bias, limiting its prognostic value. State-of-the-art deep learning methods can support experts but have been observed to strongly deteriorate when applied in a different clinical environment. The variability caused by using different whole slide scanners has been identified as one decisive component in the underlying domain shift. The goal of the MICCAI MIDOG 2021 challenge was the creation of scanner-agnostic MF detection algorithms. The challenge used a training set of 200 cases, split across four scanning systems. As test set, an additional 100 cases split across four scanning systems, including two previously unseen scanners, were provided. In this paper, we evaluate and compare the approaches that were submitted to the challenge and identify methodological factors contributing to better performance. The winning algorithm yielded an score of 0.748 (CI95: 0.704-0.781), exceeding the performance of six experts on the same task