Skip to content
naulon
Get started

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 23, 2026.

Artificial intelligence assistance significantly improves Gleason grading of prostate biopsies by pathologists

Wouter Bulten, Maschenka Balkenhol, Jean-Joël Awoumou Belinga and 43 more

Modern Pathology · 2021 · CC BY

doi:10.1038/s41379-020-0640-y

Abstract

The Gleason score is the most important prognostic marker for prostate cancer patients, but it suffers from significant observer variability. Artificial intelligence (AI) systems based on deep learning can achieve pathologist-level performance at Gleason grading. However, the performance of such systems can degrade in the presence of artifacts, foreign tissue, or other anomalies. Pathologists integrating their expertise with feedback from an AI system could result in a synergy that outperforms both the individual pathologist and the system. Despite the hype around AI assistance, existing literature on this topic within the pathology domain is limited. We investigated the value of AI assistance for grading prostate biopsies. A panel of 14 observers graded 160 biopsies with and without AI assistance. Using AI, the agreement of the panel with an expert reference standard increased significantly (quadratically weighted Cohen's kappa, 0.799 vs. 0.872; p = 0.019). On an external validation set of 87 cases, the panel showed a significant increase in agreement with a panel of international experts in prostate pathology (quadratically weighted Cohen's kappa, 0.733 vs. 0.786; p = 0.003). In both experiments, on a group-level, AI-assisted pathologists outperformed the unassisted pathologists and the standalone AI system. Our results show the potential of AI systems for Gleason grading, but more importantly, show the benefits of pathologist-AI synergy.

Full text

Its licence does not allow us to show the full text. Read it at PubMed Central:

Read at PubMed Central

References 23

  1. 1.

    Epstein JI. An update of the Gleason grading system. J Urol. 2010;183:433-40.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.juro.2009.10.046

  2. 2.

    Allsbrook WC, Mangold KA, Johnson MH, Lane RB, Lane CG, Epstein JI. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: general pathologists. Hum Pathol. 2001;32:81-8.

    Not in our library10.1053/hupa.2001.21135

  3. 3.

    Egevad L, Ahmad AS, Algaba F, Berney DM, Boccon-Gibod L, Compérat E, et al. Standardization of Gleason grading among 337 European pathologists. Histopathology. 2013;62:247-56.

    Not in our library10.1111/his.12008

  4. 4.

    Allsbrook WC, Mangold KA, Johnson MH, Lane RB, Lane CG, Amin MB, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: urologic pathologists. Hum Pathol. 2001;32:74-80.

    Not in our library10.1053/hupa.2001.21134

  5. 5.
    Development and validation of a deep learning algorithm for improving Gleason scoring of prostate cancer · 2019
    Corrected
  6. 6.
    Automated Gleason grading of prostate cancer tissue microarrays via deep learning · 2018
    Corrected
  7. 7.

    Bulten W, Pinckaers H, van Boven H, Vink R, de Bel T, van Ginneken B, et al. Automated deep-learning system for Gleason grading of prostate cancer using biopsies: a diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21:233-41.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(19)30739-9

  8. 8.

    Ström P, Kartasalo K, Olsson H, Solorzano L, Delahunt B, Berney DM, et al. Artificial intelligence for diagnosis and grading of prostate cancer in biopsies: a population-based, diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21:222-32.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(19)30738-7

  9. 9.

    Epstein JI, Allsbrook WCJ, Amin MB, Egevad LL, Committee IG. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2006;49:758-9.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.eururo.2006.02.007

  10. 10.

    Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD, Nelson JB, Egevad L, Magi-Galluzzi C, et al. A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason score. Eur Urol. 2016;69:428-35.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.046

  11. 11.

    Ozkan TA, Eruyar AT, Cebeci OO, Memik O, Ozcan L, Kuskonmaz I. Interobserver variability in Gleason histological grading of prostate cancer. Scand J Urol. 2016;50:420-4.

    Not in our library10.1080/21681805.2016.1206619

  12. 12.

    Litjens G, Kooi T, Bejnordi BE, Setio AAA, Ciompi F, Ghafoorian M, et al. A survey on deep learning in medical image analysis. Med Image Anal. 2017;42:60-88.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.media.2017.07.005

  13. 13.

    Niazi MKK, Parwani AV, Gurcan MN. Digital pathology and artificial intelligence. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20:e253-61.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(19)30154-8

  14. 14.
    Deep learning as a tool for increased accuracy and efficiency of histopathological diagnosis · 2016
    No notice
  15. 15.

    Campanella G, Hanna MG, Geneslaw L, Miraflor A, Werneck Krauss Silva V, Busam KJ, et al. Clinical-grade computational pathology using weakly supervised deep learning on whole slide images. Nat Med. 2019;25:1301-9.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41591-019-0508-1

  16. 16.

    Raciti P, Sue J, Ceballos R, Godrich R, Kunz JD, Kapur S, et al. Novel artificial intelligence system increases the detection of prostate cancer in whole slide images of core needle biopsies. Mod Pathol. 2020. [Epub ahead of print].

    Not in our library10.1038/s41379-020-0551-y

  17. 17.

    Lucas M, Jansen I, Savci-Heijink CD, Meijer SL, de Boer OJ, van Leeuwen TG, et al. Deep learning for automatic Gleason pattern classification for grade group determination of prostate biopsies. Virchows Arch. 2019;475:77-83.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00428-019-02577-x

  18. 18.

    Rodríguez-Ruiz A, Krupinski E, Mordang J-J, Schilling K, Heywang-Köbrunner SH, Sechopoulos I, et al. Detection of breast cancer with mammography: effect of an artificial intelligence support system. Radiology. 2018;290:305-14.

    Not in our library10.1148/radiol.2018181371

  19. 19.

    Steiner DF, MacDonald R, Liu Y, Truszkowski P, Hipp JD, Gammage C, et al. Impact of deep learning assistance on the histopathologic review of lymph nodes for metastatic breast cancer. Am J surgical Pathol. 2018;42:1636-46.

    Not in our library10.1097/pas.0000000000001151

  20. 20.

    Balkenhol MCA, Tellez D, Vreuls W, Clahsen PC, Pinckaers H, Ciompi F, et al. Deep learning assisted mitotic counting for breast cancer. Lab Investig. 2019;99:1596-606.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41374-019-0275-0

  21. 21.

    Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surgical Pathol. 2015;40:1.

    Not in our library10.1097/01.pas.0000173646.99337.b1

  22. 22.

    Egevad L, Delahunt B, Berney DM, Bostwick DG, Cheville J, Comperat E, et al. Utility of pathology imagebase for standardisation of prostate cancer grading. Histopathology. 2018;73:8-18.

    Not in our library10.1111/his.13471

  23. 23.

    Cai CJ, Winter S, Steiner D, Wilcox L, Terry M. Hello AI: uncovering the onboarding needs of medical practitioners for human-ai collaborative decision-making. Proc ACM Hum-Computer Interact. 2019;3:104.

    Not in our library10.1145/3359206

Cited by papers we hold 3

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.