Foundation Models -- A Panacea for Artificial Intelligence in Pathology?

The role of artificial intelligence (AI) in pathology has evolved from aiding diagnostics to uncovering predictive morphological patterns in whole slide images (WSIs). Recently, foundation models (FMs) leveraging self-supervised pre-training have been widely advocated as a universal solution for diverse downstream tasks. However, open questions remain about their clinical applicability and generalization advantages over end-to-end learning using task-specific (TS) models. Here, we focused on AI with clinical-grade performance for prostate cancer diagnosis and Gleason grading. We present the largest validation of AI for this task, using over 100,000 core needle biopsies from 7,342 patients across 15 sites in 11 countries. We compared two FMs with a fully end-to-end TS model in a multiple instance learning framework. Our findings challenge assumptions that FMs universally outperform TS models. While FMs demonstrated utility in data-scarce scenarios, their performance converged with - and was in some cases surpassed by - TS models when sufficient labeled training data were available. Notably, extensive task-specific training markedly reduced clinically significant misgrading, misdiagnosis of challenging morphologies, and variability across different WSI scanners. Additionally, FMs used up to 35 times more energy than the TS model, raising concerns about their sustainability. Our results underscore that while FMs offer clear advantages for rapid prototyping and research, their role as a universal solution for clinically applicable medical AI remains uncertain. For high-stakes clinical applications, rigorous validation and consideration of task-specific training remain critically important. We advocate for integrating the strengths of FMs and end-to-end learning to achieve robust and resource-efficient AI pathology solutions fit for clinical use.

Physical Color Calibration of Digital Pathology Scanners for Robust Artificial Intelligence Assisted Cancer Diagnosis

The potential of artificial intelligence (AI) in digital pathology is limited by technical inconsistencies in the production of whole slide images (WSIs), leading to degraded AI performance and posing a challenge for widespread clinical application as fine-tuning algorithms for each new site is impractical. Changes in the imaging workflow can also lead to compromised diagnoses and patient safety risks. We evaluated whether physical color calibration of scanners can standardize WSI appearance and enable robust AI performance. We employed a color calibration slide in four different laboratories and evaluated its impact on the performance of an AI system for prostate cancer diagnosis on 1,161 WSIs. Color standardization resulted in consistently improved AI model calibration and significant improvements in Gleason grading performance. The study demonstrates that physical color calibration provides a potential solution to the variation introduced by different scanners, making AI-based cancer diagnostics more reliable and applicable in clinical settings.

Pathologist-Level Grading of Prostate Biopsies with Artificial Intelligence

Background: An increasing volume of prostate biopsies and a world-wide shortage of uro-pathologists puts a strain on pathology departments. Additionally, the high intra- and inter-observer variability in grading can result in over- and undertreatment of prostate cancer. Artificial intelligence (AI) methods may alleviate these problems by assisting pathologists to reduce workload and harmonize grading. Methods: We digitized 6,682 needle biopsies from 976 participants in the population based STHLM3 diagnostic study to train deep neural networks for assessing prostate biopsies. The networks were evaluated by predicting the presence, extent, and Gleason grade of malignant tissue for an independent test set comprising 1,631 biopsies from 245 men. We additionally evaluated grading performance on 87 biopsies individually graded by 23 experienced urological pathologists from the International Society of Urological Pathology. We assessed discriminatory performance by receiver operating characteristics (ROC) and tumor extent predictions by correlating predicted millimeter cancer length against measurements by the reporting pathologist. We quantified the concordance between grades assigned by the AI and the expert urological pathologists using Cohen's kappa. Results: The performance of the AI to detect and grade cancer in prostate needle biopsy samples was comparable to that of international experts in prostate pathology. The AI achieved an area under the ROC curve of 0.997 for distinguishing between benign and malignant biopsy cores, and 0.999 for distinguishing between men with or without prostate cancer. The correlation between millimeter cancer predicted by the AI and assigned by the reporting pathologist was 0.96. For assigning Gleason grades, the AI achieved an average pairwise kappa of 0.62. This was within the range of the corresponding values for the expert pathologists (0.60 to 0.73).