Tumour purity assessment with deep learning in colorectal cancer and impact on molecular analysis.

Journal: The Journal of pathology
PMID:

Abstract

Tumour content plays a pivotal role in directing the bioinformatic analysis of molecular profiles such as copy number variation (CNV). In clinical application, tumour purity estimation (TPE) is achieved either through visual pathological review [conventional pathology (CP)] or the deconvolution of molecular data. While CP provides a direct measurement, it demonstrates modest reproducibility and lacks standardisation. Conversely, deconvolution methods offer an indirect assessment with uncertain accuracy, underscoring the necessity for innovative approaches. SoftCTM is an open-source, multiorgan deep-learning (DL) model for the detection of tumour and non-tumour cells in H&E-stained slides, developed within the Overlapped Cell on Tissue Dataset for Histopathology (OCELOT) Challenge 2023. Here, using three large multicentre colorectal cancer (CRC) cohorts (N = 1,097 patients) with digital pathology and multi-omic data, we compare the utility and accuracy of TPE with SoftCTM versus CP and bioinformatic deconvolution methods (RNA expression, DNA methylation) for downstream molecular analysis, including CNV profiling. SoftCTM showed technical repeatability when applied twice on the same slide (r = 1.0) and excellent correlations in paired H&E slides (r > 0.9). TPEs profiled by SoftCTM correlated highly with RNA expression (r = 0.59) and DNA methylation (r = 0.40), while TPEs by CP showed a lower correlation with RNA expression (r = 0.41) and DNA methylation (r = 0.29). We show that CP and deconvolution methods respectively underestimate and overestimate tumour content compared to SoftCTM, resulting in 6-13% differing CNV calls. In summary, TPE with SoftCTM enables reproducibility, automation, and standardisation at single-cell resolution. SoftCTM estimates (M = 58.9%, SD ±16.3%) reconcile the overestimation by molecular data extrapolation (RNA expression: M = 79.2%, SD ±10.5, DNA methylation: M = 62.7%, SD ±11.8%) and underestimation by CP (M = 35.9%, SD ±13.1%), providing a more reliable middle ground. A fully integrated computational pathology solution could therefore be used to improve downstream molecular analyses for research and clinics. © 2024 The Author(s). The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

Authors

  • Lydia A Schoenpflug
    Department of Pathology and Molecular Pathology, University Hospital and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
  • Aikaterini Chatzipli
    Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, UK.
  • Korsuk Sirinukunwattana
  • Susan Richman
    Leeds Institute of Medical Research, University of Leeds, LS9 7TF, UK.
  • Andrew Blake
    Department of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
  • James Robineau
    Department of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
  • Kirsten D Mertz
    Institute of Pathology, Cantonal Hospital Baselland, Mühlemattstrasse 11, CH-4410, Liestal, Switzerland.
  • Clare Verrill
    Department of Cellular Pathology, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, John Radcliffe Hospital, Headley Way, Oxford, OX3 9DU, UK; Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Headley Way, Oxford, OX3 9DU, UK; NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, John Radcliffe Hospital, Headley Way, Oxford, OX3 9DU, UK. Electronic address: Clare.Verrill@ouh.nhs.uk.
  • Simon J Leedham
    Gastrointestinal Stem-cell Biology Laboratory, Oxford Centre for Cancer Gene Research, Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, Oxford, UK.
  • Claire Hardy
    Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, UK.
  • Celina Whalley
    Institute of Cancer and Genomic Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
  • Keara Redmond
    The Patrick G Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, Queens University Belfast, Belfast, BT7 9AE, UK.
  • Philip Dunne
    The Patrick G Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, Queens University Belfast, Belfast, BT7 9AE, UK.
  • Steven Walker
    The Patrick G Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, Queens University, Belfast, UK.
  • Andrew D Beggs
    School of Cancer Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
  • Ultan McDermott
    Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, UK.
  • Graeme I Murray
    Department of Pathology, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
  • Leslie M Samuel
    Department of Clinical Oncology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, NHS GRAMPIAN, Aberdeen, UK.
  • Matthew Seymour
    Department of Oncology, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, Leeds, UK.
  • Ian Tomlinson
    Institute for Cancer Genetics and Informatics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Edinburgh Cancer Research Centre, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
  • Philip Quirke
    Pathology and Data Analytics, Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
  • Jens Rittscher
    Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
  • Tim Maughan
    Department of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
  • Enric Domingo
    Department of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
  • Viktor H Koelzer
    Institute of Cancer and Genomic Science, University of Birmingham, 6 Mindelsohn Way, Birmingham, B15 2SY, UK. vkoelzer@well.ox.ac.uk.