Abstract
Twenty years of research improved the classification of ovarian carcinoma, making the diagnostic relevant from a scientific and clinical perspective. Our research question was to find out if old studies are still pertinent under new diagnostic criteria and how we can use machine learning techniques for re-classification purposes.
The same main investigator re-classified 60 cases of ovarian carcinoma after 15 years, using 2014 WHO diagnostic criteria. Selected pathology data only (macro, micro information and immunohistochemistry images coming from a seven-stain panel) were provided for digital analysis. Biomarker images were digitalized and quantified using open source software and a validated methodology. 1080 attributes were classified using a random forest (open source) algorithm, using a supervised learning technique (the training dataset used 180 attributes). Human results were considered “ground truth” for the digital analysis.
The human analysis maintained the initial histopathologic diagnostic in 61.5% of cases. The digital prediction shows 80% accuracy and 73% precision when compared with human reclassified data. Based on results, we concluded that “recycling” of old studies is possible. Limitation of the study are the low number of cases analyzed, the total absence of clinical, treatment and prognostic data and a possible human criteria selection bias. Even if technical difficulties related to biomarker selection and histological analysis exist, digital investigation of existing, large archival registries is feasible, reliable and it can be done at a low cost.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
Machine learning reclassification of IHC diagnostic pathology
Funding Statement
no funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
pathology retrospective study, patients provided approval before surgery
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
0
Blogs/Media
Author Videos