Nguyen, Jane

686 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have been used to treat advanced muscle invasive and/or metastatic bladder cancer. However, ICIs are only effective in 30-40% of cases. In light of potentially significant IRAE’s, tools to predict individual patient level benefits are desirable. AI technology offers the opportunity to apply computational methods to predict outcomes from readily available digitized pathology slides. We investigated the utility of an AI platform integrating computational biomarkers based on morphological characterization of digitized H&E slide whole images (WSI) to predict response to ICI. Methods: We analyzed H&E-stained whole slide images (WSI) of bladder tumor tissue collected from transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) from 116 patients with advanced or metastatic bladder cancer at a single institution between 2015-2020. Adjacent multiplex IHC stained specimens were analyzed myeloid and lymphoid marker panels. 20 patients from the overall cohort treated with ICI were designated ‘responders’ (complete response, partial response, stable disease) and 20 patients were identified as non-responders (progressive disease) based on ICI best clinical/radiographic response. WSIs were divided into small non-overlapping image patches. These image tiles were processed into multiple AI encoder models to extract morphological features. The tile morphological features, represented by high dimensional vectors, were combined by an aggregation model to represent the whole slide morphology and then used to classify the patients into responders vs non-responders to immunotherapy. Area-under-the-receiver operating characteristic (AUC) was used to measure the performance of response prediction. Results: Our method shows AUC of 0.708 at classification of the patients (n=40) into responder and non-responder groups. With a cutoff that identifies the top 50% patients (n=20) of high probability of responding to immunotherapy predicted by our models, 75% of them are responders. In the bottom 50% patients (n=20) of the low scores, 75% of them are non-responders. . Multiplex IHC (myeloid and lymphoid panel) was performed using adjacent sections and were characterized yielding deeper mechanistic insight into the inflammatory populations driving predictive morphologic patterns. Conclusions: By applying innovative AI morphological analysis on patient WSIs, we generated a computational biomarker that shows promising ability to predict patient response to immunotherapy in bladder cancer. This approach merits future prospective validation and additional patient level analysis in broader cohorts. [Table: see text]

Context.— Controversies and uncertainty persist in prostate cancer grading. Objective.— To update grading recommendations. Data Sources.— Critical review of the literature along with pathology and clinician surveys. Conclusions.— Percent Gleason pattern 4 (%GP4) is as follows: (1) report %GP4 in needle biopsy with Grade Groups (GrGp) 2 and 3, and in needle biopsy on other parts (jars) of lower grade in cases with at least 1 part showing Gleason score (GS) 4 + 4 = 8; and (2) report %GP4: less than 5% or less than 10% and 10% increments thereafter. Tertiary grade patterns are as follows: (1) replace “tertiary grade pattern” in radical prostatectomy (RP) with “minor tertiary pattern 5 (TP5),” and only use in RP with GrGp 2 or 3 with less than 5% Gleason pattern 5; and (2) minor TP5 is noted along with the GS, with the GrGp based on the GS. Global score and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsies are as follows: (1) when multiple undesignated cores are taken from a single MRI-targeted lesion, an overall grade for that lesion is given as if all the involved cores were one long core; and (2) if providing a global score, when different scores are found in the standard and the MRI-targeted biopsy, give a single global score (factoring both the systematic standard and the MRI-targeted positive cores). Grade Groups are as follows: (1) Grade Groups (GrGp) is the terminology adopted by major world organizations; and (2) retain GS 3 + 5 = 8 in GrGp 4. Cribriform carcinoma is as follows: (1) report the presence or absence of cribriform glands in biopsy and RP with Gleason pattern 4 carcinoma. Intraductal carcinoma (IDC-P) is as follows: (1) report IDC-P in biopsy and RP; (2) use criteria based on dense cribriform glands (>50% of the gland is composed of epithelium relative to luminal spaces) and/or solid nests and/or marked pleomorphism/necrosis; (3) it is not necessary to perform basal cell immunostains on biopsy and RP to identify IDC-P if the results would not change the overall (highest) GS/GrGp part per case; (4) do not include IDC-P in determining the final GS/GrGp on biopsy and/or RP; and (5) “atypical intraductal proliferation (AIP)” is preferred for an intraductal proliferation of prostatic secretory cells which shows a greater degree of architectural complexity and/or cytological atypia than typical high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, yet falling short of the strict diagnostic threshold for IDC-P. Molecular testing is as follows: (1) Ki67 is not ready for routine clinical use; (2) additional studies of active surveillance cohorts are needed to establish the utility of PTEN in this setting; and (3) dedicated studies of RNA-based assays in active surveillance populations are needed to substantiate the utility of these expensive tests in this setting. Artificial intelligence and novel grading schema are as follows: (1) incorporating reactive stromal grade, percent GP4, minor tertiary GP5, and cribriform/intraductal carcinoma are not ready for adoption in current practice.