RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Diagnostic Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence in Classifying HER2 Status in Breast Cancer Immunohistochemistry Slides and Implications for HER2-Low Cases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2024.11.04.24316688
DO 10.1101/2024.11.04.24316688
A1 Arruda Navarro Albuquerque, Daniel
A1 Trotta Vianna, Matheus
A1 Alencar Fernandes Sampaio, Luana
A1 Vasiliu, Andrei
A1 Cunha Neves Filho, Eduardo Henrique
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/04/2024.11.04.24316688.abstract
AB Breast cancer with overexpression of the Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2) accounts for 15-20% of cases and is associated with poor outcomes. Although trastuzumab-deruxtecan (T-DXd) has traditionally demonstrated survival benefits in metastatic HER2-positive patients, the DESTINY-Breast04 trial expanded its effectiveness to those with immunohistochemistry (IHC) scores of 1+, and 2+ with negative in situ hybridisation, a subset of patients that has since been termed “HER2-low”. Accurate differentiation of HER2 scores has now become crucial. However, visual IHC scoring is labour-intensive and prone to high interobserver variability. AI has emerged as a promising tool in diagnostic medicine, particularly within histopathology. This study assesses AI’s ability to identify patients eligible for T-DXd and its performance in accurately classifying HER2 scores. Electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science up to May 2024. Eligibility criteria were limited to studies evaluating the performance of AI compared to pathologists in classifying HER2 utilising IHC slides. Metaanalysis was performed using the bivariate random-effects model to estimate pooled sensitivity, specificity, concordance, and area under the curve (AUC). To explore sources of heterogeneity, subgroup analysis and meta-regression were performed. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-AI tool. We analysed 25 contingency tables across thirteen included publications, showing excellent AI accuracy in predicting T-DXd eligibility, with a pooled sensitivity of 0.97 [95%CI 0.96-0.98], specificity of 0.82 [95%CI 0.73-0.88], and AUC of 0.98 [95%CI 0.96-0.99]. In the individual scores analysis, AI performed better particularly in scores 2+ and 3+. Substantial heterogeneity was observed, and meta-regression revealed better performance with deep learning and patch-based analysis, while performance declined in externally validated and those utilising commercially available algorithms. Our findings indicate that AI holds promising potential in accurately identifying HER2-low patients and excels in distinguishing 2+ and 3+ scores. Upcoming validation studies should focus on enhancing AI’s precision in the 0-1+ range and improving the reporting of clinical and pre-analytical data to standardise samples characteristics, ensuring models are more comparable to each other. This review highlights that deep learning advancements are driving automation, requiring pathologists to adapt and integrate this technology into their workflow.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study did not receive any funding. Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study used (or will use) ONLY openly available human data that were originally located at: MEDLINE (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov), EMBASE (https://www.embase.com/landing?status=grey), Scopus (https://www.scopus.com/home.uri) and Web of Science (https://clarivate.com/academia-government/scientific-and-academic-research/research-discovery-and-referencing/web-of-science/) databases. 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.YesI 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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced are available online at MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov https://www.embase.com/landing?status=grey https://www.scopus.com/home.uri https://clarivate.com/academia-government/scientific-and-academic-research/research-discovery-and-referencing/web-of-science/