Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Prostate Cancer Diagnosis for Reduced Use of Immunohistochemistry

Prostate cancer diagnosis heavily relies on histopathological evaluation, which is subject to variability. While immunohistochemical staining (IHC) assists in distinguishing benign from malignant tissue, it involves increased work, higher costs, and diagnostic delays. Artificial intelligence (AI) presents a promising solution to reduce reliance on IHC by accurately classifying atypical glands and borderline morphologies in hematoxylin & eosin (H&E) stained tissue sections. In this study, we evaluated an AI model's ability to minimize IHC use without compromising diagnostic accuracy by retrospectively analyzing prostate core needle biopsies from routine diagnostics at three different pathology sites. These cohorts were composed exclusively of difficult cases where the diagnosing pathologists required IHC to finalize the diagnosis. The AI model demonstrated area under the curve values of 0.951-0.993 for detecting cancer in routine H&E-stained slides. Applying sensitivity-prioritized diagnostic thresholds reduced the need for IHC staining by 44.4%, 42.0%, and 20.7% in the three cohorts investigated, without a single false negative prediction. This AI model shows potential for optimizing IHC use, streamlining decision-making in prostate pathology, and alleviating resource burdens.

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.