Digital re-classification of equivocal dysplastic urothelial lesions using morphologic and immunohistologic analysis

Introduction

A precise diagnostic of flat urinary bladder lesions, critical for the treatment and prognosis of patients, can be difficult even for experienced uropathologists [1]. The most recent and widely used “flat urothelial lesions” classification (World Health Organization 2004 classification, modified in 2016) positioned Carcinoma in Situ (CIS), Dysplastic Lesions (DL), Reactive Hyperplasia (RH) and flat hyperplasia as part of a diagnostic continuum [2]. It is recommended to separate these diagnostic entities based on morphologic features [3] but a clear distinction is not always easy as bioptic tissue is scarce or fragmented, the normal urothelium histology is complex and important morphological features might be shared between normal, reactive and malign tissue [4]. CIS is described as a high-grade flat intraepithelial lesion composed of malignant cells with large hyper-chromatic nuclei (5-6x larger than a lymphocyte), serious pleomorphism and frequent mitoses, having a high propensity of developing muscle invasive cancers [5]. DL is tissue with recognizable pre-neoplastic cytological and architectural changes that are under the threshold of diagnostic of CIS [6]. RH shows smaller nuclei (2-3x the diameter of a lymphocyte nucleus), organized tissue structure, less nucleolar persistence [7] and is often associated with benign urologic pathology. A new diagnostic category, “Atypia of Unknown Significance” (AUS), sometimes named “urothelial proliferation of uncertain malignant potential” was recently added in an attempt to nest cases where a clear differentiation is difficult. AUS is still a subject of controversy and some authors recommend to avoid it as there is no robust evidence that patient outcomes are different from reactive atypia [8,9]. Because of overlapping morphology, a wide degree of subjectivity and inter-observational variability was reported mainly in equivocal cases [10,11].

Immunohistochemistry (IHC), a histology technique that allows a precise detection of specific proteins based on the antibody-antigen reaction, may improve precision when morphologic characteristics are not enough for a clear diagnostic, when the history of the disease is unknown or there is an unusual morphologic presentation [12]. After 20 years of experience, caution is now suggested in IHC interpretation of urothelial lesions [13] as normal tissue may share some degree of staining patterns and there is no single specific/sensitive marker that can make a difference between diagnostics. A way to circumvent the IHC ambiguities is provided by the concomitant use (panels) of several IHC markers [3]. Concomitant use of 4 markers (IHC panel composed of CK20, CD44, p53, and KI-67) demonstrated a clear adjuvant value to morphology [14-16]. CD20 (cytoplasmatic) is widely recognized as the most reliable CIS associated marker [17]. KI67 (nuclear) is seen as an aggressiveness and prognostic indicator [18], usually evaluated in connection with CD20 [19]. p53 (nuclear) is present in more than 50% of CIS cases and is often evaluated in conjunction with CD20 as well [20]. CD44 (membranous) is considered an exclusion marker [21,22]. Even with the help of IHC panels, a precise diagnostic is not always possible and many cases are still classified as AUS.

Computational pathology (CP) help improving the histologic exam accuracy [23]. Digital image analysis (DIA) can assess any type of microscopic image, including IHC [24]. DIA consists of image data acquisition and ground truth generation, image analysis (object detection, segmentation and recognition) and finally statistical evaluation of digital data [25]. When data is complex or equivocal, machine learning (ML) techniques can use mathematical models (algorithms) for statistical analysis. In the case of flat urothelial lesions diagnostic, CP can use an algorithm to analyze DIA data and generate associations in an objective, measurable and reproducible way. Our research objective was to evaluate how a decision tree algorithm can reclassify the AUS diagnostics after a supervised learning instruction process [26], using both morphology and IHC (4-panel) data.

Material and methods

In this retrospective non-interventional analysis, precursor urothelial diagnostics found over a period of 3 years were re-evaluated by the principal investigator. All cases had a similar histology evaluation (Hematoxylin eosin and panel IHC) and were processed and stained using the same methodology (details concerning IHC characteristics and technique are provided in annex 1). Aside demographic info (sex and age), no other clinical information was available for this study.

Based on initial diagnostic classification, 2 datasets were created. An unequivocal “training” dataset (CIS, DL and RL) and equivocal “diagnostic” dataset (AUS). Images from both datasets were digitally analyzed in 2 steps: Data gathering (microscopic image capture, image segmentation, features measurement) was followed by data processing (data analysis, algorithm training and re-classification).

Data processing

A random decision tree classification algorithm was used for re-classification of all AUS cases. The “training” dataset (including all cases with a clear diagnostic of CIS, RH, DL and 5 cases of normal urothelium 50 instances) was considered ground truth and was used for algorithm training. The “diagnostic” dataset included all cases of equivocal atypia discovered in the clinic in the same period of time (50 instances).

As both datasets were small (100 instances, 16 attributes each) we opted for an open source machine learning toolkit (WEKA) software solution that is widely accepted in bioinformatics, has a good graphical interface and requires no programming [34]. A random tree classification algorithm was selected over the classic “c4.5” as graphical representation of the decision is as intuitive but cross validating classification results were better. Datasets attributes, quantification methodology and cross-validation results are detailed in annex 1. The structure of the random tree is presented in image 4.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Image 4.

Decision tree algorithm, training dataset, classification criteria.

Based on intensity of stain for each marker, we recorded the percentage of positive cases in each group (SI threshold for CD20 and p53 > 50% and for Ki67 >15%). We also counted the concomitant presence of strong stain for each marker in neoplastic against non-neoplastic groups in both training and diagnostic sets.

Results

From 256 existing urinary bladder biopsies over 3 years (188 men, 68 women), 191 neoplastic cases were selected. 71 of cases received a diagnosis of T1 and 18 of T2 muscular infiltrative carcinomas. 20 cases were classified as CIS, 8 cases were DL and 17 HL based on unequivocal morphologic and IHC features. 50 cases with an initial AUS diagnostic, were re-classified based on ground truth morphologic and IHC characteristics in 20 CIS, 17 DL and 13 RH. Results are summarized in table 1 (training dataset) and table 2 (diagnostic dataset).

Discussion

Urothelial carcinoma is the 10th most common and the second most frequent genitourinary malignancy, worldwide [35]. As urothelial carcinoma has a high recurrence rate, an early, precise differentiation of precursor neoplasms from benign reactive atypia is critical [36]. Because many flat lesions morphologic and IHC features may overlap or are shared by normal urothelium, the diagnostic is sometimes equivocal with a possible increase of medico-legal risk [37].

Our research objective was to evaluate how a machine learning algorithm can reclassify ambiguous precursor flat lesions diagnostics that were previously included under the AUS diagnostic category. A random decision tree classification algorithm was trained using data from all unequivocal flat lesions diagnosed in our unit over 3 years (20 CIS, 17 HL, 8 DL). 5 normal urothelium IHC stained tissue were also included in the training dataset for classification purposes only. The training process used both morphologic and a “classic” 4-markers IHC panel data.

Both datasets (training and a diagnostic) were digitally evaluated using open label software and affordable computational technology.

Based on classification information provided in the training dataset, the random tree algorithm reclassified the diagnostic dataset (50 AUS cases). 20 CIS, 17 DL and 13 HL possible diagnostics were suggested.

In the classification process, as expected, the nuclear area played a central role in differentiating precursor malign from benign diagnostics. Further, layer preservation, circularity and IHC calculated index were used at different levels of classification. Reported differences between the nuclear area measured in diagnostic set were by 9.7% smaller than in the training set (p=0.35), making human optical measurement and differentiation difficult. Similar difficulties were noticed for all other morphologic classification criteria.

The specific performance of the IHC panel was analyze based on percentage of strong SI for each marker in each set. Results are presented in table 4. In the training set, CIS/DL group had a 3-markers strong positivity in 23.75% of cases and of 2-markers in 56.25% of cases. In the diagnostic dataset only 7.5% of cases had 3-markers and 27% a 2-markers strong presence. For HL patients, results were negative for all inclusion markers except Ki67 in 5 cases. All cases in the diagnostic dataset were CD44 negative (13 cases were considered “patchy”).

Overall, the random tree algorithm classification had a good performance (74% correctly classified, 93% accuracy, 76% precision) when measured against the ground truth. The receiver operating characteristics (ROC) for CIS was 0.817, for DL was 0.741 and for HL 0.866. Important, only 3 cases were “false negative” (one CIS and one DL cases were classified as HL and one HL as DL) (confusion matrix table 3).

In conclusion, urothelial flat lesion classification can be a diagnostic challenge on bioptic material. Usually, a distinction between malign and benign cases is made using morphologic features and IHC is used mainly for confirmatory reasons. Both diagnostic methods are subjective and may have inter and intra observational variability and may generate ambiguous diagnostics. Our objective was to evaluate how CP can be used to circumvent flat lesions diagnostics uncertainty. Digital data from 45 unequivocal urothelial flat lesions data were used for training a ML algorithm (random tree). Main criteria for algorithm classification were morphological and a calculated IHC stain index coming from a classical panel of 4 IHC markers. The performance of the classification algorithm was good: 93% accuracy and 76% precision, averaged ROC 0.828. Only 3 cases were classified as “false negative”. Based on this “ground truth”, 50 equivocal diagnostics (AUS) were reclassified as 40% CIS, 34% DL and 26% HL. The IHC panel performance in classification was finally judged based on each of the 4 markers SI: in the training set, the panel performed well but in the diagnostic set, the performance was overall low.

Main limitations of this study are the low number of analysed cases (explaining the 76% precision rate), the deliberate absence of clinical data, absence of genomic information and the use of a non-customizable classification algorithm. The number of flat urothelial lesions is low and reflects the rarity of this diagnostic in everyday uro-pathology practice. The absence of clinical data is an important clinical limitation as many of flat lesions are recurrent. Long term clinical follow-up of cases, use of a molecular phenotyping information and a customized classification algorithm may further improve classification precision.

In flat atypia equivocal cases, CP can be a support for diagnostics, as it may handle multiple data attributes in a fast, effective and precise way.

Annex

Details of classification accuracy – training set