Review
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2022.
Artif Intell Gastroenterol. Dec 28, 2022; 3(5): 142-162
Published online Dec 28, 2022. doi: 10.35712/aig.v3.i5.142
Table 2 AI-based applications in pathology for the determination of tumor behavior in colorectal carcinomas
Ref.
Task
Data sets
Algorithm/Model
Performance
Comments
Xu et al[55]NL/ADC/MC/SC/PC/CCTA717 patchesAlexNetAccuracy: 97%The model provides the classifications of tumor subtypes
Korbar et al[56]NL/HP/SSP/TSA/TA/TVA-VATraining set: 458 WSIs; Test set: 239 WSısResNETF1 Score: 88.8%; Accuracy: 93%; Precision: 89.7%; Recall: 88.3%The model may reduce the workload of pathologists in the assessment of colorectal polyps
Haj-Hassan et al[57]NL/AD/ADC30 patients, Multispectral image patchesCNNAccuracy: 99.2%CNN allows the classification of CRC tissue types using pre-segmented regions of interest
Ponzio et al[58]NL/AD/ADC27 WSIsVGG16Accuracy: 96%TL considerably outperforms the CNN fully trained on CRC samples on the same test dataset
Sena et al[59]NL/HP/AD/ADC 393 images CNNAccuracy: 80%DL may provide a valuable tool to assist pathologists in the histological classification of CR tumors
Iizuka et al[60]NL/AD/ADC4036 WSIs + 500WSIsCNN/RNNAUCs: 0.96-0.99Integrating DL models in pathology workflow would be of high benefit for easing the workload of pathologists
Wei et al[61] NL//TA/TVA/VA/HP1182 WSIsResNetAccuracy: 93.5% (Internal test set); Accuracy: 87% (External test set)This model may assist pathologists by improving the accuracy of CRC screening
Awan et al[62]NL/Low GR/High GR139 images CNNAccuracy: 97% (two-class), 91% (three-class) The model provides the classifications of tumor subtypes based on the shape of glands
Sirinukunwattana et al[97]Prediction of MSTs510 WSIs (FOCUS), 431 WSIs (TCGA), 265 WSIs (GRAMPIAN cohort)Inception V3AUCs: 0.9 (FOCUS); 0.94 (TCGA), 0.85 (GRAMPIAN cohort)RNA expression classifiers can predict from H-E stained images, opening the door to cheap and reliable biological stratification within routine workflows
Echle et al[98]MSI vs MSS6406 WSIs (Training); 771 WSIs (External validation)ShuffleNetAUC: 0.92 (Training); AUC: 0.96 (External validation)The model provides a low-cost evaluation of MSI without molecular testing
Kather et al[80]MSI vs MSS60894 patches (TCGA-CRC-KR); 93408 patches (TCGA-CRC-DX)ResNet18AUC: 0.84 (TCGA-CRC-KR); AUC: 0.77 (TCGA-CRC-DX)This method may lead to improvements in molecular subtype screening workload in pathology
Kather et al[77]Prediction of molecular Als426 patients (TCGA-CRC); 379 patients (DACHS) ShuffleNetAUROC: 0.76 The algorithm predicts a wide range of molecular alterations from routine, H-E stained slides
Kruger et al[99]Prediction of MSTs919 WSIsResNet 34AUCs: Mean: 0.87; CMS1: 0.85; CMS2: 0.92, CMS3: 0.85; CMS4: 0.86The MIL framework can identify morphological features indicative of different molecular subtypes
Popovici et al[100]Prediction of MSTs300 WSIsVGG-FAccuracy: 0.84; Recall: 0.85; Precision: 0.84The image-based classifier shows a significant prognostic value similar to the molecular counterparts
Cao et al[101]MSI vs MSS429 patients (TCGA-COAD); 785 patients (Asian-CRC)EPLAAUC: 0.88 (TCGA-COAD); AUC: 0.85 (Asian-CRC)This pathomics-based model provides MSI estimation directly from images without molecular testing
Bilal et al[102]Prediction of molecular Als502 slides (TCGA-CRC-DX); 47 slides (PAIP)ResNet18, ResNet34, HoVerNetAUROCS: HM (0.81 vs 0.71); MSI (0.86 vs 0.74); CIN (0.83 vs 0.73), BRAFmut (0.79 vs 0.66), TP53mut (0·vs 0.64), KRASmut (0.60), CIMP (0.79)This algorithm is based on non-annotated images and uses only slide-level labels to predict the status of CRC pathways and mutations
Kwak et al[110]LNM prediction164 patientsCNN, U-NetAUROC: 67%PTS score is a potential prognostic parameter for LNM in CRC
Pai et al[111]LNM prediction230 patients (training), (136 testing)CNNAUROC: 79%The model allows to identify and quantify a broad spectrum of histological features, including LNM in CRC
Kiehl et al[112]LNM prediction3013 patientsResNET18AUROC: 74.1%DL-based analysis may help predict the LNM of patients with CRC using routine HE-stained slides
Weis et al[120]Tumor Budding (Pan-CK) 381 patients CNN Spatial clusters of tumor buds correlates to N status (P: 0.003)The model is a feasible and valid assessment tool for tumor budding on WSIs and can predict prognosis
Kather et al[121]ADI, DEB, LYM, MUC, SM86 slides (Training), 25 slides (Testing); 862 slide (TCGA-COAD) VGG19AUC: 98.7% HR: 2.29 (OS); 1.92 (RFS); Deep stroma score HR: 1.99 (P: 0.002), Shorter OSThis model can assess the human TME and predict prognosis directly from histopathological images
Shapcott et al[122]TME (EC/IC/FC/MC)853 patches, 142 images (TCGA-COAD)CNNAccuracy: 76% (detection), 65% (classification)The model provides the assessment of TME in CRC slides
Sirinukunwattana et al[123] a-4 tissues classes; b- prediction of DM102 casesSpatially Constrained CNNa-AUROC: 90.4-99.9%; b-AUROC: 58.6-63.8%The algorithm provides a digital marker for estimating the risk of DM
Swiderska-Chadaj et al[124]TME Detection of ICs28 WSIsFCN/LSM/U-NetF1-score of 0.80; Sensitivity: 74%; Precision: 86%DL approaches are reliable for automatically detecting lymphocytes in IHC-stained CRC tissue sections
Geessink et al[115]TSR129 slidesCNN HR: 2.48 (DSS); 2.05 (DFS)CNN defined TSR as an independent prognosticator
Zhao et al[125]TSR499 patients (Discovery cohort); 315 patients (Validation cohort:)CNN TSR, independent prognostic parameter. HRs: 2.48 (Discovery cohort); 2.08 (Validation cohort)CNN allows objective evaluation of TSR
Zhao et al[126]Mucus tumor ratio low vs mucus tumor ratio high814 patientsCNN HRs: 1.88 (Discovery cohort); 2.09 (Validation cohort)The DL quantified mucus tumor ratio is an independent prognostic factor in CRC
Bychkov et al[132]Prognosis LR vs HR420 TMAVGG-16HR: 2.3The model extracts more prognostic information from the tissue morphology than the experienced human observer
Skrede et al[133]Prognosis (CSS)1122 patients (Validation cohort)DoMorev1HRs: 1.89 (uncertain vs good); 3.84 (poor vs good)The digital marker has the potential to identify patients at LR and HR and provides the selection of treatment
Jiang et al[134] a-HRR vs LRR b-Poor vs good prognosis101 patients (Traning); 67 patients (Validation); 47 (TCGA-COAD)InceptionResNetV2a-HRs: 8.98 (training); 10.69 (other 2 test groups); b-HRs: 10.687 (training); 5.03 (other 2 test groups)The selected model offers an independent prognostic predictor which allows stratification of stage III CRC into risk groups