Cancer-Tissue Fraction as a Scanner-Robust Triage Signal for Automated Gleason Grading of Prostate Biopsies: External Validation Across a Middle Eastern Cohort
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Background
Deep-learning systems for Gleason grading are developed almost entirely on high-end clinical scanners and on cohorts from a small number of Western institutions, yet deployment increasingly involves other devices and other populations. These two distribution shifts, device and population, are rarely tested together on the same physical slides. The PAR dataset, from Erbil, Iraq, digitizes each biopsy on three scanners and provides three distinct pathologist grades, so it permits both tests at once on a Middle Eastern cohort. A concurrent study by the dataset originators validated a task-specific model and two foundation models on PAR; we complement it by testing an independently developed detect-then-grade pipeline and by separating scanner effects on detection from scanner effects on grading.
Methods
We applied one fixed model developed on North American and European material to all 1017 whole-slide images (339 slides from 185 patients, three scanners; 49.6% clinically significant cancer) with no scanner-specific or population-specific tuning. We measured cancer detection (area under the ROC curve of the predicted cancer-tissue fraction), all-slide ISUP agreement of the deployed detect-then-grade pipeline (quadratic-weighted kappa, QWK), and grading agreement on pathologist-confirmed cancers, at the slide level and, because a case carries up to two slides, at the patient level. The reference reader was S.A.; thresholds and operating points were cross-validated leave-one-out; scanners were compared by paired within-biopsy bootstrap and confidence intervals confirmed by patient-cluster bootstrap.
Results
Detection was statistically equivalent across scanners (AUC 0.987 to 0.991; paired differences at most 0.003) and transferred to this non-Western cohort with no per-population tuning. At a 95% sensitivity operating point the deployed pipeline reached cross-validated all-slide QWK of 0.86, 0.81, and 0.86 (Grundium, Hamamatsu, Leica), matching the inter-pathologist ceiling of 0.81, against 0.23 to 0.62 for the ungated model. Grading of confirmed cancers was scanner dependent: the compact Grundium (0.63) did not differ from the clinical Leica (0.67; paired difference 0.04, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.11), while both exceeded Hamamatsu (0.44). Results held at the patient level, with grading somewhat lower for two scanners; the two slides of a case disagreed in grade in 43% of cases, and patient clustering did not widen the intervals.
Conclusions
Cancer-tissue fraction is a triage signal robust across scanner and transferable to an underrepresented population for detection, while grading is the scanner-sensitive step. Prostate grading models should be deployed as a detect-then-grade pipeline, with grading validated per device and confirmed on the local population.
