Abstract
Histopathological evaluation of prostate biopsies using the Gleason scoring system is critical for prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment selection. However, grading variability among pathologists can lead to inconsistent assessments, risking inappropriate treatment. Similar challenges complicate the assessment of other prognostic features like cribriform cancer morphology and perineural invasion. Many pathology departments are also facing an increasingly unsustainable workload due to rising prostate cancer incidence and a decreasing pathologist workforce coinciding with increasing requirements for more complex assessments and reporting.
Digital pathology and artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms for analysing whole slide images (WSI) show promise in improving the accuracy and efficiency of histopathological assessments. Studies have demonstrated AI’s capability to diagnose and grade prostate cancer comparably to expert pathologists. However, external validations on diverse data sets have been limited and often show reduced performance. Historically, there have been no well-established guidelines for AI study designs and validation methods. Diagnostic assessments of AI systems often lack pre-registered protocols and rigorous external cohort sampling, essential for reliable evidence of their safety and accuracy.
This study protocol covers the retrospective validation of an AI system for prostate biopsy assessment. The primary objective of the study is to develop a high-performing and robust AI model for diagnosis and Gleason scoring of prostate cancer in core needle biopsies, and at scale evaluate whether it can generalise to fully external data from independent patients, pathology laboratories, and digitalisation platforms. The secondary objectives cover AI performance in estimating cancer extent and in detecting cribriform prostate cancer and perineural invasion. This protocol outlines the steps for data collection, predefined partitioning of data cohorts for AI model training and validation, model development, and predetermined statistical analyses, ensuring systematic development and comprehensive validation of the system. The protocol adheres to TRIPOD+AI, PIECES, CLAIM, and other relevant best practices.
Competing Interest Statement
N.M., L.E., K.K. and M.E. are shareholders of Clinsight AB, and M.R. is a co-founder and shareholder of Stratipath AB.
Funding Statement
A.B. received a grant from the Health Faculty at the University of Stavanger, Norway. B.G.P and K.D.S received funding from Innovation Fund Denmark (Grant no. 8114-00014B) for the Danish branch of the NordCaP project. M.R. received funding from the Swedish Research Council and the Swedish Cancer Society. P.R. received funding from the Research Council of Finland (Grant no. 341967) and the Cancer Foundation Finland. M.E. received funding from the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Cancer Society, Swedish Prostate Cancer Society, Nordic Cancer Union, Karolinska Institutet, and Region Stockholm. K.K. received funding from the David and Astrid Hagelen Foundation, Instrumentarium Science Foundation, KAUTE Foundation, Karolinska Institute Research Foundation, Orion Research Foundation and Oskar Huttunen Foundation.
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:
The Stockholm regional ethics committee (permits 2012/572-31/1, 2012/438-31/3, and 2018/845-32), the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (permit 2019-05220), and the Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics (REC) in Western Norway (permits REC/Vest 80924, REK 2017/71) gave ethical approval for this work. Informed consent was provided by the participants in the Swedish dataset. For the other datasets, informed consent was waived by the institutional review board due to the usage of de-identified prostate specimens in a retrospective setting.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
A subset of the data used for model training (STHLM3 and RUMC cohorts) are available for non-commercial purposes subject to a CC BY-SA-NC 4.0 license as part of the PANDA challenge dataset and are freely downloadable after registration at https://www.kaggle.com/c/prostate-cancer-grade-assessment. The validation cohort SPROB20 is available for non-commercial purposes under the AIDA BY license upon accepted access request at the AIDA Data Hub at https://datahub.aida.scilifelab.se/10.23698/aida/sprob20. The validation cohorts UKK and WNS are available for non-commercial purposes under the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license upon accepted access request at https://zenodo.org/records/8102833 and https://zenodo.org/records/8102929.
