Sophie Merz

Andreas Haghofer, Eda Parlak, Alexander Bartel et al.

Variation in nuclear size and shape is an important criterion of malignancy for many tumor types; however, categorical estimates by pathologists have poor reproducibility. Measurements of nuclear characteristics (morphometry) can improve reproducibility, but manual methods are time consuming. The aim of this study was to explore the limitations of estimates and develop alternative morphometric solutions for canine cutaneous mast cell tumors (ccMCT). We assessed the following nuclear evaluation methods for measurement accuracy, reproducibility, and prognostic utility: 1) anisokaryosis (karyomegaly) estimates by 11 pathologists; 2) gold standard manual morphometry of at least 100 nuclei; 3) practicable manual morphometry with stratified sampling of 12 nuclei by 9 pathologists; and 4) automated morphometry using a deep learning-based segmentation algorithm. The study dataset comprised 96 ccMCT with available outcome information. The study dataset comprised 96 ccMCT with available outcome information. Inter-rater reproducibility of karyomegaly estimates was low ($κ$ = 0.226), while it was good (ICC = 0.654) for practicable morphometry of the standard deviation (SD) of nuclear size. As compared to gold standard manual morphometry (AUC = 0.839, 95% CI: 0.701 - 0.977), the prognostic value (tumor-specific survival) of SDs of nuclear area for practicable manual morphometry (12 nuclei) and automated morphometry were high with an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.868 (95% CI: 0.737 - 0.991) and 0.943 (95% CI: 0.889 - 0.996), respectively. This study supports the use of manual morphometry with stratified sampling of 12 nuclei and algorithmic morphometry to overcome the poor reproducibility of estimates.

Jonathan Ganz, Christian Marzahl, Jonas Ammeling et al.

The count of mitotic figures (MFs) observed in hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained slides is an important prognostic marker as it is a measure for tumor cell proliferation. However, the identification of MFs has a known low inter-rater agreement. Deep learning algorithms can standardize this task, but they require large amounts of annotated data for training and validation. Furthermore, label noise introduced during the annotation process may impede the algorithm's performance. Unlike H&E, the mitosis-specific antibody phospho-histone H3 (PHH3) specifically highlights MFs. Counting MFs on slides stained against PHH3 leads to higher agreement among raters and has therefore recently been used as a ground truth for the annotation of MFs in H&E. However, as PHH3 facilitates the recognition of cells indistinguishable from H&E stain alone, the use of this ground truth could potentially introduce noise into the H&E-related dataset, impacting model performance. This study analyzes the impact of PHH3-assisted MF annotation on inter-rater reliability and object level agreement through an extensive multi-rater experiment. We found that the annotators' object-level agreement increased when using PHH3-assisted labeling. Subsequently, MF detectors were evaluated on the resulting datasets to investigate the influence of PHH3-assisted labeling on the models' performance. Additionally, a novel dual-stain MF detector was developed to investigate the interpretation-shift of PHH3-assisted labels used in H&E, which clearly outperformed single-stain detectors. However, the PHH3-assisted labels did not have a positive effect on solely H&E-based models. The high performance of our dual-input detector reveals an information mismatch between the H&E and PHH3-stained images as the cause of this effect.

Frauke Wilm, Christof A. Bertram, Christian Marzahl et al.

Density of mitotic figures in histologic sections is a prognostically relevant characteristic for many tumours. Due to high inter-pathologist variability, deep learning-based algorithms are a promising solution to improve tumour prognostication. Pathologists are the gold standard for database development, however, labelling errors may hamper development of accurate algorithms. In the present work we evaluated the benefit of multi-expert consensus (n = 3, 5, 7, 9, 11) on algorithmic performance. While training with individual databases resulted in highly variable F$_1$ scores, performance was notably increased and more consistent when using the consensus of three annotators. Adding more annotators only resulted in minor improvements. We conclude that databases by few pathologists and high label accuracy may be the best compromise between high algorithmic performance and time investment.

Christian Marzahl, Christof A. Bertram, Marc Aubreville et al.

Deep-learning-based pipelines have shown the potential to revolutionalize microscopy image diagnostics by providing visual augmentations to a trained pathology expert. However, to match human performance, the methods rely on the availability of vast amounts of high-quality labeled data, which poses a significant challenge. To circumvent this, augmented labeling methods, also known as expert-algorithm-collaboration, have recently become popular. However, potential biases introduced by this operation mode and their effects for training neuronal networks are not entirely understood. This work aims to shed light on some of the effects by providing a case study for three pathologically relevant diagnostic settings. Ten trained pathology experts performed a labeling tasks first without and later with computer-generated augmentation. To investigate different biasing effects, we intentionally introduced errors to the augmentation. Furthermore, we developed a novel loss function which incorporates the experts' annotation consensus in the training of a deep learning classifier. In total, the pathology experts annotated 26,015 cells on 1,200 images in this novel annotation study. Backed by this extensive data set, we found that the consensus of multiple experts and the deep learning classifier accuracy, was significantly increased in the computer-aided setting, versus the unaided annotation. However, a significant percentage of the deliberately introduced false labels was not identified by the experts. Additionally, we showed that our loss function profited from multiple experts and outperformed conventional loss functions. At the same time, systematic errors did not lead to a deterioration of the trained classifier accuracy. Furthermore, a classifier trained with annotations from a single expert with computer-aided support can outperform the combined annotations from up to nine experts.

Marc Aubreville, Christof A. Bertram, Christian Marzahl et al.

Manual count of mitotic figures, which is determined in the tumor region with the highest mitotic activity, is a key parameter of most tumor grading schemes. It can be, however, strongly dependent on the area selection due to uneven mitotic figure distribution in the tumor section.We aimed to assess the question, how significantly the area selection could impact the mitotic count, which has a known high inter-rater disagreement. On a data set of 32 whole slide images of H&E-stained canine cutaneous mast cell tumor, fully annotated for mitotic figures, we asked eight veterinary pathologists (five board-certified, three in training) to select a field of interest for the mitotic count. To assess the potential difference on the mitotic count, we compared the mitotic count of the selected regions to the overall distribution on the slide.Additionally, we evaluated three deep learning-based methods for the assessment of highest mitotic density: In one approach, the model would directly try to predict the mitotic count for the presented image patches as a regression task. The second method aims at deriving a segmentation mask for mitotic figures, which is then used to obtain a mitotic density. Finally, we evaluated a two-stage object-detection pipeline based on state-of-the-art architectures to identify individual mitotic figures. We found that the predictions by all models were, on average, better than those of the experts. The two-stage object detector performed best and outperformed most of the human pathologists on the majority of tumor cases. The correlation between the predicted and the ground truth mitotic count was also best for this approach (0.963 to 0.979). Further, we found considerable differences in position selection between pathologists, which could partially explain the high variance that has been reported for the manual mitotic count.