Automatic and explainable grading of meningiomas from histopathology images
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Meningioma is one of the most prevalent brain tumors in adults. To determine its malignancy, it is graded by a pathologist into three grades according to WHO standards. This grade plays a decisive role in treatment, and yet may be subject to inter-rater discordance. In this work, we present and compare three approaches towards fully automatic meningioma grading from histology whole slide images. All approaches are following a two-stage paradigm, where we first identify a region of interest based on the detection of mitotic figures in the slide using a state-of-the-art object detection deep learning network. This region of highest mitotic rate is considered characteristic for biological tumor behavior. In the second stage, we calculate a score corresponding to tumor malignancy based on information contained in this region using three different settings. In a first approach, image patches are sampled from this region and regression is based on morphological features encoded by a ResNet-based network. We compare this to learning a logistic regression from the determined mitotic count, an approach which is easily traceable and explainable. Lastly, we combine both approaches in a single network. We trained the pipeline on 951 slides from 341 patients and evaluated them on a separate set of 141 slides from 43 patients. All approaches yield a high correlation to the WHO grade. The logistic regression and the combined approach had the best results in our experiments, yielding correct predictions in 32 and 33 of all cases, respectively, with the image-based approach only predicting 25 cases correctly. Spearman's correlation was 0.716, 0.792 and 0.790 respectively. It may seem counterintuitive at first that morphological features provided by image patches do not improve model performance. Yet, this mirrors the criteria of the grading scheme, where mitotic count is the only unequivocal parameter.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 5 of its 24 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Jul 2021.
Builds on
5 of 24 references.
References · 5
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,809
- 2015Faster R-CNN: Towards Real-Time Object Detection with Region Proposal Networkscited by 9,617
- 2018Predicting breast tumor proliferation from whole-slide images: the TUPAC16 challengecited by 61
- 2020Are pathologist-defined labels reproducible? Comparison of the TUPAC16 mitotic figure dataset with an alternative set of labelscited by 12
- 2016Deep Learning Assessment of Tumor Proliferation in Breast Cancer Histological Imagescited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 1.
2 papers.