> Details

Firmbach, Daniel; Benz, Michaela; Kuritcyn, Petr; Bruns, Volker; Lang-Schwarz, Corinna; Stuebs, Frederik A.; Merkel, Susanne; Leikauf, Leah-Sophie; Braunschweig, Anna-Lea; Oldenburger, Angelika; Gloßner, Laura; Abele, Niklas; Eck, Christine; Matek, Christian; Hartmann, Arndt; Geppert, Carol I.

Tumor–Stroma Ratio in Colorectal Cancer—Comparison between Human Estimation and Automated Assessment

Reference
management

Bookmarks

Remove from
bookmarks

Share this on Whatsapp

Close

Bookmarks



You can manage bookmarks using lists, please log in to your user account for this.
  • Media type: E-Article
  • Title: Tumor–Stroma Ratio in Colorectal Cancer—Comparison between Human Estimation and Automated Assessment
  • Contributor: Firmbach, Daniel; Benz, Michaela; Kuritcyn, Petr; Bruns, Volker; Lang-Schwarz, Corinna; Stuebs, Frederik A.; Merkel, Susanne; Leikauf, Leah-Sophie; Braunschweig, Anna-Lea; Oldenburger, Angelika; Gloßner, Laura; Abele, Niklas; Eck, Christine; Matek, Christian; Hartmann, Arndt; Geppert, Carol I.
  • Published: MDPI AG, 2023
  • Published in: Cancers, 15 (2023) 10, Seite 2675
  • Language: English
  • DOI: 10.3390/cancers15102675
  • ISSN: 2072-6694
  • Origination:
  • Footnote:
  • Description: The tumor–stroma ratio (TSR) has been repeatedly shown to be a prognostic factor for survival prediction of different cancer types. However, an objective and reliable determination of the tumor–stroma ratio remains challenging. We present an easily adaptable deep learning model for accurately segmenting tumor regions in hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained whole slide images (WSIs) of colon cancer patients into five distinct classes (tumor, stroma, necrosis, mucus, and background). The tumor–stroma ratio can be determined in the presence of necrotic or mucinous areas. We employ a few-shot model, eventually aiming for the easy adaptability of our approach to related segmentation tasks or other primaries, and compare the results to a well-established state-of-the art approach (U-Net). Both models achieve similar results with an overall accuracy of 86.5% and 86.7%, respectively, indicating that the adaptability does not lead to a significant decrease in accuracy. Moreover, we comprehensively compare with TSR estimates of human observers and examine in detail discrepancies and inter-rater reliability. Adding a second survey for segmentation quality on top of a first survey for TSR estimation, we found that TSR estimations of human observers are not as reliable a ground truth as previously thought.
  • Access State: Open Access