Table 2.
Comparison of advanced DL image analysis studies in digital pathology, comprising mutation prediction, prognostication and response prediction.
Reference | Description | Ext. validation | Number of slides | Number of patients | Number of cohorts | AUROC | F score | Accuracy | Other metrics |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mutation detection | |||||||||
69 | Prediction of ER status in breast cancer | No | 859 | 859 | 1 | N/A | N/A | 84% | Sensitivity = 88%; specificity = 76% |
36 | Prediction of SPOP mutation in prostate cancer | Yes | 365 | N/A | 2 | 0.86 (P = 0.0038) | N/A | N/A | N/A |
26 | Prediction of different genes in lung cancer and ext. validation of EGFR mutation | Yes | 1975 | N/A | 3 | 0.68 | N/A | N/A | N/A |
37 | Prediction of BRAF and NRAS in melanoma | Yes | 361 | N/A | 2 | 0.75 (BRAF); 0.77 (NRAS) | N/A | N/A | N/A |
70 | TP53 mutation prediction | No | 27,815 | N/A | 28 | 0.8 (stomach) | N/A | N/A | N/A |
71 | Detection of HPV in head and neck cancer; detection of EBV in gastric cancer | Yes | 1031 | 1031 | 4 | 0.7 (HPV); 0.81 (EBV) | N/A | N/A | N/A |
27 | Prediction of microsatellite instability in colorectal, gastric and endometrial cancer | Yes | 2108 | 1952 | 5 | 0.84 (CRC) | N/A | N/A | N/A |
38 | Pan-cancer prediction of gene expression | No | 10,514 | 8725 | 28 | 0.81 (MSI) | N/A | N/A | N/A |
72 | Prediction of BAP1 expression in uveal melanoma | Yes | 47 | 47 | 2 | N/A | 0.93 | 92.8% | Sensitivity = 92.1%; specificity = 91.1% |
73 | Prediction of tumour mutational burden in liver cancer | No | 368 | 350 | 1 | 0.95 | N/A | 94.86% | N/A |
74 | Prediction of PD-L1 status in non-small- cell lung cancer patients | No | 130 | 130 | N/A | 0.8 (P < 0.01) | N/A | N/A | N/A |
Therapy-response prediction | |||||||||
51 | Prediction of response to ipilimumab in melanoma patients | No | 31 | 31 | 1 | N/A | N/A | 70.9% | N/A |
52 | Prediction of probability that tissue from non-small-cell lung cancer will respond to immunotherapy | No | 56 | 56 | 2 | 0.65 | N/A | N/A | N/A |
Survival prediction | |||||||||
C score | Hazard ratio | ||||||||
48 | Prediction of 5-year disease-specific survival in patients with colorectal cancer | No | 420 | 420 | 1 | N/A | 2.3 | AUROC = 0.96 | |
75 | Consensus molecular subtyping of colorectal cancer and predication of overall survival | No | 769 | N/A | 2 | 0.8 | N/A | N/A | |
45 | Prediction of survival in colorectal cancer | Yes | 1382 | N/A | 3 | N/A | 1.63 (1.14–2.33, P = 0.008) | N/A | |
47 | Prediction of survival for patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma | No | 246 | 246 | 2 | N/A | 0.86 | N/A | |
76 | Classification of patients to high risk or low risk in order to predict overall survival | No | 1299 | 1299 | 2 | N/A | 1.74 (1.16–2.61, P = 0.006) | AUROC = 0.58 | |
77 | Stratification of patients into groups of short- and long-term survival by means of tumour- infiltrating lymphocytes | No | 70 | 70 | 1 | 0.87 | N/A | N/A | |
46 | Prediction of survival in mesothelioma and identification of histological correlates | Yes | 3037 | 3037 | 2 | 0.66 | N/A | N/A | |
49 | Prediction of development of metastatic recurrence in primary melanoma patients | Yes | 263 | 263 | 5 | N/A | N/A | AUROC = 0.91 | |
78 | Stratification of patients with colorectal cancer to good, uncertain or poor prognosis | Yes | 4515 | 3595 | 4 | N/A | 3.83 | Accuracy = 76%; sensitivity = 52%; specificity = 78%; PPV = 0.19; NPV = 0.94 | |
79 | Classification of patients with brain cancer in four groups based on survival time after diagnosis | Yes | 664 | 454 | 2 | N/A | N/A | AUROC = 0.96; accuracy = 80% | |
80 | Prediction of overall survival of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma | Yes | 732 | 522 | 2 | 0.7 | 4.3 | N/A | |
81 | Prediction of disease-specific survival in ten different cancer types | No | 12,095 | 4880 | 10 | 61.1 (57.2, 65.1) | 1.48 (P < 0.0001) | AUROC = 0.64 (58,70.3); 5-year disease- specific survival |
N/A not available.
For each study, the level of evidence (presence of external validation), the number (#) of tissue slides, patients and patient cohorts as well as quantitative performance metrics are given, including area under the receiver-operating curve, AUROC; F score; accuracy; positive predictive value, PPV; negative predictive value, NPV; true-positive rate, TPR; false-positive rate, FPR; false-negative rate, FNR; other metrics (sensitivity, specificity and others) if reported in the study. This table is related to Fig. 2b.