PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
October 7, 2025Cancers6 citationsOpen Access

Validation of an Artificial Intelligence Model for Breast Cancer Molecular Subtyping Using Hematoxylin and Eosin-Stained Whole-Slide Images in a Population-Based Cohort

View Full Paper
UKUmay KirazCFClaudio Fernandez‐MartínEREmma Rewcastle

Key Points

  • The AI model achieved an accuracy of 83.3% in distinguishing triple negative breast cancer from non-TNBC.
  • Performance metrics showed a decline in accuracy as the classification complexity increased among subtypes.
  • A pretrained deep learning framework based on multiple-instance learning was utilized to analyze the data.
  • This method proposes a standardized alternative to immunohistochemistry for breast cancer molecular subtyping.

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Breast cancer (BC) is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women and the leading cause of cancer-related deaths globally. Molecular subtyping is crucial for prognosis and treatment planning, with immunohistochemistry (IHC) being the most commonly used method. However, IHC has limitations, including observer variability, a lack of standardization, and a lack of reproducibility. Gene expression profiling is considered the ground truth for molecular subtyping; unfortunately, this is expensive and inaccessible to many institutions. This study investigates the potential of an artificial intelligence (AI) model to predict BC molecular subtypes directly from hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained whole-slide images (WSIs). Methods: A pretrained deep learning framework based on multiple-instance learning (MIL) was validated on the Stavanger Breast Cancer (SBC) dataset, consisting of 538 BC cases. Three classification tasks were assessed, including two-class triple negative BC (TNBC) vs. non-TNBC, three-class (luminal vs. HER2-positive vs. TNBC), and four-class (luminal A vs. luminal B vs. HER2-positive vs. TNBC) groups. Performance metrics were used for the evaluation of the AI model. Results: The AI model demonstrated strong performance in distinguishing TNBC from non-TNBC (AUC = 0.823, accuracy = 0.833, F1-score = 0.824). However, performance declined with an increasing number of classes. Conclusions: The study highlights the potential of AI in BC molecular subtyping from H&E WSIs, offering an easily applicable and standardized method to IHC. Future improvements should focus on optimizing multi-class classification and validating AI-based methods against gene expression analyses for enhanced clinical applicability.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Kiraz et al. (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68e585d0b1e78cc4e5f46483https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17193234
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries2024 · 25,401 citations
  2. 2Impact of Prosigna test on adjuvant treatment decision in lymph node-negative early breast cancer—a prospective national multicentre study (EMIT-1)2024 · 14 citations
  3. 3Identification of human triple-negative breast cancer subtypes and preclinical models for selection of targeted therapies2011 · 5,612 citations
  4. 4Molecular portraits of human breast tumours2000 · 16,469 citations
  5. 5Unstained Tissue Imaging and Virtual Hematoxylin and Eosin Staining of Histologic Whole Slide Images2023 · 44 citations