Multiwavelet grading of pathological images of prostate

Abstract

Histological grading of pathological images is used to determine level of malignancy of cancerous tissues. This is a very important task in prostate cancer prognosis, since it is used for treatment planning. If infection of cancer is not rejected by non-invasive diagnostic techniques like magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography scan, and ultrasound, then biopsy specimens of tissue are tested. For prostate, biopsied tissue is stained by hematoxyline and eosine method and viewed by pathologists under a microscope to determine its histological grade. Human grading is very subjective due to interobserver and intraobserver variations and in some cases difficult and time-consuming. Thus, an automatic and repeatable technique is needed for grading. Gleason grading system is the most common method for histological grading of prostate tissue samples. According to this system, each cancerous specimen is assigned one of five grades. Although some automatic systems have been developed for analysis of pathological images, Gleason grading has not yet been automated; the goal of this research is to automate it. To this end, we calculate energy and entropy features of multiwavelet coefficients of the image. Then, we select most discriminative features by simulated annealing and use a k-nearest neighbor classifier to classify each image to appropriate grade (class). The leaving-one-out technique is used for error rate estimation. We also obtain the results using features extracted by wavelet packets and co-occurrence matrices and compare them with the multiwavelet method. Experimental results show the superiority of the multiwavelet transforms compared with other techniques. For multiwavelets, critically sampled preprocessing outperforms repeated-row preprocessing and has less sensitivity to noise for second level of decomposition. The first level of decomposition is very sensitive to noise and, thus, should not be used for feature extraction. The best multiwavelet method grades prostate pathological images correctly 97% of the time.

Automated classification of brain tumor type in whole-slide digital pathology images using local representative tiles

“…Accuracy of the model is stable over much of the parameter range, with lower accuracy only occurring where lambda forces few to no features to be included in the model. Dundar et al, 2011Dundar et al, , 2010Esgiar et al, 2002;Farjam et al, 2007;Fatima et al, 2014;Glotsos et al, 2008;Gunduz et al, 2004;Gupta et al, 2001;Hall et al, 2008;Huang and Lai, 2010;Huang and Lee, 2009;Jafari-Khouzani and Soltanian-Zadeh, 2003;Monaco and Tomaszewski, 2008;Kong et al, 2007;Kwak et al, 2011;Land et al, 2008;Lessmann et al, 2007;Meng et al, 2010;Naik et al, 2008Naik et al, , 2007Ozolek et al, 2014;Petushi et al, 2006;Qureshi et al, 2008Qureshi et al, , 2007Sboner et al, 2003;Schnorrenberg et al, 1997;Sertel et al, 2010;Sparks and Madabhushi, 2013;Sudbø et al, 2000;Tabesh and Teverovskiy, 2006;Tabesh et al, 2007Tabesh et al, , 2005Tahir and Bouridane, 2006;Tasoulis et al, 2003;Teverovskiy et al, 2004;Thiran and Macq, 1996;Tsai et al, 2009;Xu et al 2014aXu et al , 2014bYang et al, 2009). These approache...…”

“…Even before WSI was practical, researchers captured a single frame of an entire slide using a standard microscope creating a subset of the image for computational analysis (Adiga et al, 2006;Aiad et al, 2009;Altunbay et al, 2010;Baak et al, 1981;Brook et al, 2007;Esgiar et al, 2002Esgiar et al, , 2002Farjam et al, 2007;Fatima et al, 2014;Glotsos et al, 2008;Gunduz et al, 2004;Gupta et al, 2001;Hall et al, 2008;Huang and Lai, 2010;Huang and Lee, 2009;Jafari-Khouzani and Soltanian-Zadeh, 2003;Kong et al, 2007;Land et al, 2008;Lessmann et al, 2007;Meng et al, 2010;Ozolek et al, 2014;Qureshi et al, 2008Qureshi et al, , 2007Sboner et al, 2003;Schnorrenberg et al, 1997;Sudbø et al, 2000;Tahir and Bouridane, 2006;Tasoulis et al, 2003;Thiran and Macq, 1996;Tsai et al, 2009). For many researchers doing pathology image analysis today, this is still the best option, either because they do not have access to a WSI system, or because they can capture data not possible with a WSI system, such as confocal microscopy images.…”

Automated labelling of cancer textures in colorectal histopathology slides using quasi-supervised learning

“…As another future study, several other texture feature types, such as, features obtained from the segmentation of the histopathology images into chromatin-rich, stromal and unstained regions, wavelet transforms and fractal dimensions will be considered for NNCR and CRCa texture separation (Karacali and Tozeren, 2007;Jafari-Khouzani and Soltanian-Zadeh, 2003;Li et al, 2007;Zhang and Ma, 2007;Shirazi et al, 2000). In addition, the proposed framework will also be applied to several other differential histopathology cases in colorectal or other tissue sections.…”

Localization of Diagnostically Relevant Regions of Interest in Whole Slide Images: a Comparative Study

“…Histopathological image analysis research tackles many problems related to diagnosis of the disease, including nucleus detection [3][4][5][6][7], prediction of clinical variables (diagnosis [8][9][10][11][12], grade [13][14][15][16][17][18], survival time [19][20][21]), identification of genetic factors controlling tumor morphology (gene expression [20,22], molecular subtypes [20,23]), and localization of ROIs [24][25][26][27][28]. One of the major research directions in histopathological image analysis is to develop image features for different problems and image types.…”